Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2640 (MAD)

Fit Person v. M. Raman

2017-08-16

M.M.SUNDRESH, N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : M.M. SUNDRESH, J. 1. These two writ appeals have been preferred by the Fit Person and the Joint Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE Department, who had been arrayed as respondents in the Writ Petition. 2. The respondents 1 to 5 herein being the writ petitioners filed the Writ Petition, seeking to assail the order appointing a Fit Person in public interest and in view of the prevailing situation. The revision filed by the respondents 1 to 5 was also dismissed and thereafter the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the sole ground that the respondents 1 to 5/writ petitioners were not heard. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeals have been filed. 3. The learned counsels appearing for the appellants state that admittedly one Malayan was in management and administration of the temple and he had no objection for appointment of the Fit Person. The Fit person has taken charge. There is alternative remedy under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. There is a decree obtained against two of the respondents treating them as tenants. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/writ petitioners would submit that what the learned Single Judge did was remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Therefore, no interference is required. 5. By way of reply, the learned counsels appearing for the appellants would submit that even the appointment of the administrator was made known to the respondents 1 to 5/writ petitioners as seen from the documents in which they have affixed their signatures. 6. After hearing the arguments, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/writ petitioners would submit that the respondents 1 to 5 may be permitted to workout their remedy under Section 114 of the Act, leaving all issues open. 7. Considering the above said submission, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge with liberty to the respondents 1 to 5/writ petitioners to file revision under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Taking into consideration the length of time spent in the Writ Petition and Writ Appeals, the respondents 1 to 5/writ petitioners are given 6 weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file such a revision. Taking into consideration the length of time spent in the Writ Petition and Writ Appeals, the respondents 1 to 5/writ petitioners are given 6 weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file such a revision. As and when the same is filed, the concerned Authority shall consider it and pass orders on merits without rejecting it on the ground of limitation or delay. It is open to the respondents 1 to 5/writ petitioners to produce all the relevant documents available with them before the said authority, if so, advised. 8. These Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.