1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P(MD)Nos.8475 to 8483 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011(in all W.Ps) R.Geetha .. Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8475/2011 B.Mohan .. Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8476/2011 C.Surendrakumar .. Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8477/2011 A.Ravi .. Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8478/2011 K.Mahalingam .. Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8479/2011 C.Surendrakuma .. Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8480/2011 V.Saravanan .. Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8481/2011 K.Mahalingam .. Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8482/2011 V.Mahesh .. Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8483/2011 Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, The Administration Department, Chennai-34. 2.The Joint Commissioner, O/o.Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madurai. 3.The Fit Person, Arulmigu Santhakula Sowmiya Narayana Kavaraya Trust, No.1, Gandhi Road, Palani, Dindigul District. .. Respondents COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Pa.Mu.No.3363/2011/A4, dated 05.05.2011 on the file of the second respondent and impugned notice dated 16.07.2011 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy (In all W.Ps) For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Govindan, (In all W.Ps) Spl. Govt. Pleader For R3 : Mr.B.Saravanan (In all W.Ps) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 COMMON ORDER These Writ Petition have been filed to quash the order passed by the second respondent in Pa.Mu.No.3363/2011/A4, dated 05.05.2011 and the notice issued by the third respondent, dated 16.07.2011. 2. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for R-1 and R-2 and Mr.B.Saravanan, learned counsel, who takes notice for R-3. 3. The Second respondent joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Madurai is also present today. 4. By consent, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing. 5. The nine Writ petitioners are the lessees of the property belonging to the third respondent. Based on a rental agreement entered into between the third respondent, the petitioners have been occupying the premises on monthly rental basis. 6. On 16.07.2011, the third respondent has issued a notice stating that the rent has been increased and the petitioners should pay arrears of rent from 01.11.2001 to 30.05.2011. Since the rent amount was not fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959(for short 'the Act'), the petitioners have filed an appeal to the first respondent in terms of Section 34-A of the Act. The appeal was not entertained on the ground that original copy of the order fixing the rent was not enclosed. At this point of time, the petitioners approached this Court for a direction not to implement the notice without furnishing the copy of the order fixing the rent. Thereafter, the third respondent served the petitioners a copy of the proceedings said to have been passed by the second respondent sitting with two other authorities specified under the Act viz., District Registrar and the Assistant Executive Engineer, H.R & C.E., Madurai. That order is now challenged by the petitioners stating that it is not consonance with the provisions of the Act and contrary to the Division Bench judgment rendered in Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple, Adimanaiveel House Owners Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu and three others in W.A.No.8 of 2008 and W.P.No.1611 of 2008, dated 06.02.2009. 7. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon paragraph Nos.16 and 25 of the judgment referred to supra, to state that in respect of fixation of rent in terms of the Act proper opportunity should be given to the lessees to put forward their objections and which has not been done in the present case. He has also contended that there is an infirmity in the impugned proceedings inasmuch as all the three authorities have not decided the matter as a forum and therefore that is not an order passed by the Committee. 8. Paragraph Nos.16 and 25 of the judgment in W.A.No.8 of 2008 and W.P.No.1611 of 2008, dated 06.02.2009 referred to supra, read as follows: 16. The Government also noted that if guidelines are not followed, then the lease rent fixed by the committee is quashed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 either in appellate proceedings or by proceedings before the High Court wherein deficiency are pointed out. It was also noted that this only leads to the delay and loss to the lease rent for the temple and therefore, three strict guidelines were issued and it was also indicated that if they were not followed, stringent action would be initiated. Following this, further proceedings dated 02.02.2009 as per which, additional and clarificatory guidelines were issued and therefore, it is found that opportunity of raising objections is given to the lessee. 25.In view of the proceedings, dated 02.02.2009, it is clear that the Government intends to give an opportunity to the lessees before the rent is fixed. Therefore, writ petitioner is given one week time from the date of receipt of copy of this order to give their objections supported by whatever documents they have in their possession and on receipt of the same, the authorities may fix or refix the lease rent in accordance with law. 9. On the face of the order, it is apparent that the Committee consisting of the Joint Commissioner, District Registrar and the Assistant Executive Engineer, H.R & C.E., Madurai, did not have a common hearing which is a prerequisite for determination of the issue regarding fixation of rent. 10. Further as pointed out by the Division Bench which refers to a circular in Na.Ka.40651/2008/M3, dated 02.02.2009 issued by the Chief Secretary cum Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai wherein certain guidelines have been prescribed and that has to be strictly followed. 11. In this case, the petitioners were not given any opportunity to object to the fixation of the rent. It is in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the circular, dated 02.02.2009, which has been referred to in the Division Bench referred to supra. 12. For the above said reasons, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Pa.Mu.No.3363/2011/A4, dated 05.05.2011, issued to the petitioners are set aside and the Joint Commissioner along with the Committee members is directed to re-hear and decide the issue after giving the petitioners an opportunity as stated in the guidelines referred to supra and pass reasoned orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 13. The Writ petitions are allowed as above. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI Act) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, The Administration Department, Chennai-34. 2.The Joint Commissioner, O/o.Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.B.Saravanan, Advocate Sr.No.26958 +9cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate SR.Nos.26705 to 26713 +1cc to The Special Government Pleader Sr.No.26880 pm akm/29.08.11 /4p-14c/ W.P.(MD)Nos.8475 to 8483 of 2011 08.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/