Baskaran.K v. The Commissioner

ORDER Heard both sides.

¶2The petitioner's father Thiru.Karuppu Udaiyar was functioning as Trustee of the petition mentioned temple in terms of the compromise decree dated 27.07.1999 made in O.S.No.471 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Trichirappalli. Thiru.Karuppu Udaiyar passed away. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed M.P.No.463 of 2019 before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Trichirappalli and got his name entered as hereditary trustee.

¶3According to the contesting respondents, the writ petitioner cannot claim the status of the hereditary trustee. They therefore filed an appeal before the Commissioner of HR & CE. The Commissioner, HR & CE vide order dated 06.01.2025 allowed the appeal petition and set aside the order dated

31.10.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Trichirappalli.

¶4It is not in dispute that the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE passed an order only under Section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959. An appeal before the Commissioner of HR & CE was filed under Section 54 of the Act. Section 54(4) of the Act reads as follows:- "(4) Any person aggrieved by an order of 1[the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be], under sub-section (3) may, within one month from the date of receipt of the order by him, appeal against the order to the Commissioner." The provision clearly reads that an appeal must be filed within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The appellants before the Commissioner of HR & CE have nowhere averred that they had received an order in question on a particular date and that the appeal was filed within time.

¶5From the record, one can notice that appeal was filed before the Commissioner after a lapse of two years. There is nothing on record to show that an appeal was filed within time. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 (7) SCC 108 (Ganesan vs. Commissioner of Tamil Nadu HR & CE Board). The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply to the appeal proceedings before the Commissioner.

¶6From the aforesaid decision, one can safely conclude that the Commissioner does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeals/ revisions. Of-course, this has no application to exercise of suo motu power under Section 69(2) of the Act. The case on hand is not one of exercising the suo motu power by the Commissioner. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner was exercised only at the instance of the appellants who are the private respondents herein. Since the appeal could not have been entertained due to expiry of the limitation period prescribed in Section 54 of the Act, the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to the set aside as bereft of jurisdiction.

¶7The writ petition is allowed. It is needless to mention that the aggrieved parties are at liberty to challenge the order of the Joint Commissioner in the manner to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.10.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi To

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Trichy District, Trichy.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Perambalur District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. rmi

07.10.2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.10216 of 2025 K.Baskaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Trichy District, Trichy. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Perambalur District. 4.The Executive Officer, A/m.Sutharathneshwar Temple, Uttathur, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District. 5.D.Thangavel Odayar 6.M.Pounraj 7.S.Elangovan 8.Ezhil Kennedy 9.Thangarasu (R9 is impleaded by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2025 in W.M.P.(MD)No.21623 of 2025) ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in R.C.No. 55354/2022 D2, dated 06.01.2025, on the file of the 1st respondent herein, and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Abdul Majeed For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 : Dr.Ramesh Mahadev for R4 : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj for R5 : Mr.N.Anandakumar for R7 & R8 : No appearance for R6 : Mr.O.R.Gokul Abimanyu for R9