Srila Sri Pichaia Sivachariar vs The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Ganapatia Pillai, J.—The petitioner is the Madathipathi of Mela Madam, Tirunelveli, in respect of which Math the Commissioner for Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, has initiated proceedings u/s 65 of Madras Act XXII of 1959. The notice which initiated the

proceedings contains a draft scheme which the Commissioner proposes to take into consideration as a scheme suitable for the Math in question.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that proceedings were already initiated even before Act XXII of 1959 came into force and that

during the pendency of that proceeding Act XXII of 1959 came into force which necessitated the issuing of the notice u/s 65 of the new Act. This

notice contains the draft scheme proposed to be framed for the Math in question. According to the learned Counsel this indicates the decision of

the Commissioner to frame a scheme irrespective of any objections which the Madathipathi might put forward.

I cannot say that the apprehension of the petitioner is entirely unfounded because the form of the notice issued to petitioner seems at first sight to

justify the feeling that the Commissioner has already made up his mind to frame a scheme for this Math. On the other hand, Section 65 clearly

envisages that an opportunity should, be given to the Madathipathi to put forward his case on the point of the necessity or desirability for framing a

scheme; because that section enjoins the duty on the part of the Commissioner to consult in the prescribed manner the trustee and the persons

having interest before making up his mind. However, the contents of the notice, in my opinion, do not warrant the apprehension that the

Commissioner would not hear the petitioner''s objections. Section 65 does not in terms provide for the content of the notice to be given thereunder

except that it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to consult the trustee before deciding to frame a scheme. It is urged that the notice issued to the

petitioner does not provide for such consultation. To hold that such consultation is nullified by the addition of a draft scheme to the notice I do not

find any valid reasons. I am sure the Commissioner would hear the objections of the Madathipathi on the question of necessity or desirability for

framing a scheme before passing any orders in the proceedings now pending before him. In this view the writ petition is dismissed.