IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 15.11.2006 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN W.A. Nos.2326 and 2327 of 2001 and W.A.M.P.Nos.18092 and 18093 of 2001 1. S.Balakrishnan 2. S.P.Amirthalingam 3. S.Balasubramanian .. Appellants in W.A.2326/2001 01. V.Loganathan 02. Prakasam 03. S.Nataraja Pathar 04. K.Sekar 05. R.Anandhan 06. D.Mahalingam 07. R.Ramalingam 08. G.Ganesan 09. D.Thangamani 10. Gurusamy Pathar 11. C.Shanmugam 12. V.Ramaiyya Pathar 13. V.Ramalingam 14. V.Ganesan 15. K.Thiagarajan 16. K.Thennarasu 17. K.Natarajan 18. M.Selvaraj 19. G.Sekar 20. K.Rajendran 21. AR.Renganathan 22. V.Mahalingam . . Appellants in W.A.2327/2001 -vs- 1.The Secretary to Government, Tamil Culture and Religious Endowment Dept., Chennai - 9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Commissioner, HR & CE Admn., Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 34. 3.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Mailaduthurai, Nagapattinam District. 4.The Executive Officer, A/m Saranarayanaperumal Temple Kumbakonam .. Respondents in both W.As. Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against th order made in W.P.Nos. 13942 and 13943 of 2001, dated 05.09.2001. WP 13942 AND 13943/2001: pray this Court may be pleased to call for the records made i MP Nos. 2 of 1991, dt. 12.2.1992 on the file of the third respondent confirmed in A.P.No. 28/99.D2, and A.P.No. 29/99-D2, respectively dt 29.5.2000 on the file on the Second respondent, confirmed in Govt Letter (nilai) Nos. 126 and 125, dt. 22.6.2001 on the file of th first respondent respectively. For Appellants : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Spl.G.P. (for R1 to R3) Mr.D.Rajendran (for R4) J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) These writ appeals are filed against the common order of th learned single Judge dated 05.09.2001 made in W.P.Nos.13942 and 1394 of 2001, in and by which the learned Judge, after finding that th petitioners have not made out a ground to interfere with the order o the Government, dismissed both the writ petitions. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as th respondents. 3. In view of the order to be passed hereunder, we are of th view that it is unnecessary to traverse all the factual details a stated by both the parties. 4. The petitioners/appellants aggrieved by the order in A.P.No.2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of 1992 dated 29.05.2000 of the Commissioner, HR & CE, preferred revision before the Government. Along with the revision, they als filed a petition to condone the delay of 118 days in filing the sai revision filed against the order in A.P.No. 29 of 1992 date 29.05.2000. In addition to the same, they have also prayed stay o operation of the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE. By order date 22.06.2001, the Government, without going into the merits of the clai made by the petitioners, after finding that the revision filed o 25.12.2000 is beyond the prescribed period of three months unde Section 114 of the HR & CE Act, rejected the appeal as barred b limitation. The said order was challenged by way of writ petitions The learned Judge accepted the stand taken by the Government an dismissed the writ petitions. 5. The relevant provision which enables the petitioners to file revision to the Government is Section 114 of the Act. As per Sectio 144(4) of the said Act, the revision application has to be made to th Government within three months from the date on which the order o proceeding to which the application relates to was communicated to th applicant. In the case before us, there is no dispute that th revision filed before the Government was not within three months a provided under Section 144(4) of the Act. We have already referred t the fact that the petitioners themselves filed a condonation petitio along with the main revision. 6. It is not in dispute that in HR & CE Act, there is no specifi exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In this regard, it i useful to refer the judgment rendered by one of u (P.Sathasivam, J.) reported in 2001(3)MLJ 673 [T.Alamelu Ammal vs Mangalakshmi]. In the said decision, the question that was considere is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable, when ther is a delay in filing under Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Madras Cit Tenants Protection Act, 1992 after a period of one month as prescribe therein. After considering the various decisions of this Court an Supreme Court, it was concluded that there is no specific provision i the City Tenants Protection Act excluding the applicability o Limitation Act and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicabl to an application filed under Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Act. 7. In 1999(1)CTC534 [N.M.Palanimuthu vs. The Commissioner of HR CE (Admn.) Dept. and five others] R.Balasubramanian, J., whil considering Section 70 of HR & CE Act, 1959 after finding that ther is no specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in th Endowments Act, arrived a conclusion that the petition filed unde Section 5 of the Limitation Act is maintainable. 8. Considering the fact that there is no specific exclusion o Limitation Act Section 5 in particular, in the present enactmen namely HR & CE, we are in agreement with the view expressed by th https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above decisions and we are of the view that the Government ought t have considered whether the petitioners have made out sufficient caus for condonation. This aspect was not properly appreciated by th learned Judge and has committed an error in dismissing the wri petitions. 9. Under these circumstances, without going into the merits o the claim made by both the parties, we set aside the order of th Government dated 22.06.2001 and direction is issued to restore th revision filed by the petitioners. It is made clear that if th Government is satisfied that there is sufficient cause fo condonation, it is for them to decide and pass orders in accordanc with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is further made clear that if the Governmen finds that there is no sufficient cause for the delay, they are fre to pass appropriate order. The writ appeals are allowed to the exten mentioned above. No costs. gms Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government, Tamil Culture and Religious Endowment Dept., Chennai - 9. 2. The Commissioner, HR & CE Admn., Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 34. 3. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Mailaduthurai, Nagapattinam District. 4. The Executive Officer, A/m Saranarayanaperumal Temple, Kumbakonam. 1 CC TO MR.M. SRIRAM, ADVOCATE SR 55445 2 CCS TO MR.T.N. RAJAGOPALAN, ADVOCATE SR 55445 & 55104 2 CCS TO THE G.P., SR 55156 & 55155 W.A.Nos.2326 and 2327 of 200 JSK(CO) BP/29.11 15.11.2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/