“It is the discretion of the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry, if he considers it fit, for taking an appropriate decision,” the Division Bench said.
The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Commissioner need not conduct any kind of inquiry before granting his/her consent to a group of individuals to file a civil suit for the removal of a Madathipathi (head of a Mutt), the Madras High Court has ruled.
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar agreed with Special Government Pleader N.R.R. Arun Natarajan that Section 59(1) of the HR&CE Act, 1959 does not even require the Commissioner to issue notice to the Madathipathi before granting consent.
The judges said the object behind the necessity to obtain Commissioner’s consent was only to prevent filing of a frivolous suit against any Madathipathi. Therefore, the Commissioner could either grant or reject consent based on the application filed by people interested in the Mutt concerned.
If the Commissioner refuses to grant consent, the applicants could file a statutory appeal before the government under Section 59(2) of the Act and only during the appeal proceedings, the law mandates the government to conduct an inquiry before taking a final decision, the court pointed out.
“Right of hearing or inquiry has not been contemplated under Section 59(1) of the Act. It is a decision to be taken by the Commissioner based on the application… It is the discretion of the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry, if he considers it fit, for taking an appropriate decision,” the Division Bench said.
The verdict was delivered while dismissing a writ appeal filed by Sri Sankara Subramania Dharma Siva Acharya Swamigal who was the Madathipathi of Sri Thiruvalangadu Immudi Agora Dharma Sivachariayar Arya Vysya Mutt at Nerinjipettai in Bhavani taluk of Erode district.
The appellant was aggrieved against the consent granted by the HR&CE Commissioner to seven individuals on August 5, 2016 for instituting a civil suit for the removal of the Madathipathi on being aggrieved that the latter was allegedly not attending the Mutt regularly.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar had dismissed the Madathipathi’s 2016 writ petition, filed against the consent granted by the Commissioner, on January 24, 2023 after taking note that the suit was filed before a Sub Court in Bhavani in 2016 itself and that it was now ripe for trial.
The Madathipathi had preferred the present writ appeal assailing the single judge’s order but the Division Bench upheld the dismissal after analysing the provisions of the HR&CE Act. The appellant complained that the consent to sue was given without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
However, Mr. Natarajan told the court that the HR&CE Commissioner had indeed issued notice to the Madapathipathi in 2016 and granted time to file counter. The Madapathi did not file any counter and therefore, the consent to sue was granted to the seven applicants.
Not finding any infirmity in the process adopted by the Commissioner, the Division Bench said, the appellant could raise all grounds in his defence before the trial court concerned.
Published – March 12, 2025 07:20 pm IST