1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P (MD)No.8636 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.2 of 2011 1. C.Mallichettiar 2. V.Balu 3. Sankaran Chettiar 4. Thangarajan 5. Soundaiya 6. Sreenivasan ... Petitioners Versus 1. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai – 34. 2. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department, Madurai. 3. A.Malliah Chettiar 4. M.Chokkalingam ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in R.C.No.37192/2005 D2 dated 26.04.2011 and quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent to condone the delay in preferring the appeal and dispose of the appeal filed against the order of the second respondent in O.A.No.30 of 1993, dated 10.10.2001 on merits. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader For RR 3 & 4 : Mr.S.Hari Gopalakrishnan O R D E R The petitioners have come up with the above Writ Petition, challenging an order passed by the first respondent, rejecting an appeal filed under Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal was not properly explained. 2. Heard Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.S.Hari Gopalakrishnan, learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Counsel for the respondents 3 & 4. 3. The petitioners herein filed an application in O.A.No.30 of 1993, on the file of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, praying for framing a scheme for the administration of Arulmigu Ramalinga Sowdambigai Temple at E.Kottaipatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. The said application was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner, by an order dated 10.10.2001. After a delay of about 1258 days, the petitioners filed an appeal before the first respondent under Section 64(1). The appeal was accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay. That petition was dismissed by the first respondent by the order impugned in the Writ Petition. 4. The prayer of the petitioners before the Joint Commissioner was only to frame a scheme. There was no advisory and even the respondents 3 and 4 had no objection to the first respondent deciding the appeal on merits. 5. The long delay on the part of the petitioners would disentitle them to prosecute the appeal, if vested rights had been created in favour of any one. But this is not the case here. The main prayer itself was only for framing a scheme. Therefore, the Commissioner ought to have taken a pragmatic view and decided the appeal on merits. Since he has not done so, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the delay on the part of the petitioners in filing the appeal is condoned. The first respondent shall take up the appeal and decide it in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department,Chennai – 34. 2. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department,Madurai. +1cc to Mr.J.Alaguram, Advocate, Sr.No.38979 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 39071 W.P (MD)No.8636 of 2011 10.11.2011 ps/SMA/23.11.2011/5C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/