Judgment :- 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 7. 2005 on the file of Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Temple, Kancheepuram. 2. The impugned order of the Executive Officer dated 7. 2005 was passed under Section 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 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 under Section 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 6. 1999, had dismissed the appeal petition filed by the revision petitioner herein. 3. 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. 4. 4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would rely on a ratio of this Court in Vasu Thevar-v-Rukmani Ammal(AIR 2000 Madras 190) wherein the exact observations relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision runs as follows: "Both the above referred decisions of the Honble Supreme Court, namely, 1993 Supp (3)SCC 256:( AIR 1993 SC 1182 ) and 1998)1 Mad.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(1956) 1 Mad.L.J.496 "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 Honble Supreme Court in the above-referred two decisions as well as the earlier decision of this Court, the conclusion of Sampath,J reported in 1999(2)CTC 439 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." 5. . . . . . . .... . . . . . .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." 5. 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 order. 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. 6. 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. 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.