Pathikarasi vs The Special Commissioner and Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Admn., Department and Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Thirukoil

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—This revision has been directed against the order passed in A.P. No. 1 of 2006 on the file of the

Special Commissioner and Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admn. Department, Chennai-34 which had arisen out of an order dated 1.7.2005 on the

file of Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Temple, Kancheepuram.

The impugned order of the Executive Officer dated 1.7.2005 was passed u/s 34(A) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act,

1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 and 39 of 1996 Amended Act 25 of 2003). Under the said order, the Executive Officer had raised and fixed the

monthly rent for the schedule property measuring about 1 ground 541 sq.ft as Rs. 2,200/- from 1.11.2000 to three years. The said order of the

Executive Officer, was challenged before the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board under A.P. No. 1 of 2006 u/s

34(A)(3) of the said Act. The Commissioner, after holding that the fixation of rent was prepared as per the guide lines given in G.O.Ms. No. 353,

C.T. & R.E. Department dated 4.6.1999, had dismissed the appeal petition filed by the revision petitioner herein.

The grievance of the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that before the Commissioner, neither the appeal petitioner in A.P.

No. 1 of 2006 nor his counsel was present on the date of hearing but only Thiru V. Tamilarasu, the counsel appearing for the temple alone was

present, and that no opportunity was given to the appeal petitioner/revision petitioner herein to vent out his grievance before the Commissioner and

that the natural justice requires that the Commissioner, in the absence of the counsel for the appeal petitioner would have issued notice to the

appeal petitioner/revision petitioner herein before passing the final order in A.P. No. 1 of 2006.

In support of his contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would rely on a ratio of this Court in Vasu Thevar and

Others Vs. Rukmani Ammal and Another, wherein the exact observations relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision runs as follows:

Both the above referred decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, namely, Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and others Vs. Ramchand Issardas

Sadarangani and another, and (1998)1 M L.W.9 : AIR 1998 SC 258 clearly show that if the counsel for the parties reports no instructions and in

the absence of any proof to show as to whether the parties had the notice of hearing of the case on that day, the interests of justice required, that a

fresh notice for actual date hearing should be sent to the parties. In other words, if it is established that the party was not at fault, he should not be

made to suffer. In the words of Mack, J. Choorampulikkal Assan Kutty and Others Vs. Ramanalukkal Kunhi Moiden Kutty (deceased) and

Others, ""a human approach of this kind by Courts instead of disposing of appeals ex parte and applications to rehear them too strictly in

accordance with the requirements of Order 41, Rule 21, which taken literally has no real relation to conditions which now exist, will do something

to bridge the gulf between the urban lawyers and the village, which the Bench and the Bar should do their best to achieve."" The said observation of

Mack, J. is very relevant and the same has to be followed strictly when it is established that the party was not at fault. In the light of the conclusion

by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above-referred two decisions as well as the earlier decision of this Court, the conclusion of Sampath, J.

reported in Narayana Gounder Vs. Devaki Ammal and another, is confined to the particular case since even according to the learned Judge, the

party in that case was at fault and the reporting of ''no instructions'' by the counsel was deliberate.... The Court cannot be a silent spectator to the

scene which is staged in the Court. The judicial conscience of the Judge should always be satisfied before he permits a lawyer either to withdraw

or to retire from the case.

The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent-temple would represent that in the said ratio , the counsel for the petitioner had

reported no instructions and only under such circumstances, the Court has observed that for no fault of the petitioner, he should not be allowed to

suffer by an order of the Court. But the case on hand is still worse because in this case, neither the appeal petitioner nor the counsel appearing for

him was present on the date of hearing to place the grievance of the petitioner before the Commissioner. In the absence of the Advocate , the

Commissioner ought to have issued notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned 0rder. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that

this is a fit case to be remanded to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner H.R.& C.E. Admn. Department, Chennai - 34 for fresh

consideration, after giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner to place his grievance before the Commissioner.

In fine, this civil revision petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner, H.R & C.E.

Admn.Department, Chennai-600 034 for fresh consideration. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner shall appear on 2.2.2009

before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner without fail. On such appearance, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner ,H.R.& C.E.

Admn.Department, Chennai-34, after giving an opportunity to both sides shall dispose of A.P. No. 1 of 2006 in accordance with law within a

reasonable time ie., two weeks. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is closed.