SANTHOSH M. Vs. COMMISSIONER HR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2 and 9.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Ext.P1 report was prepared behind their back, though they have already moved the 2nd respondent for setting aside the same, the Ext.P2 O.A.No.9 of 2018 has not been considered. He also complained that even though the Ext.P4 appeal was preferred on 19.03.2020, the 1st respondent is sitting over it. Inviting our attention to the Rule 4 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Rules framed under Sections 31, 57 to 60, 61 (2) and 64 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, he said that mandate under Rule 11-A of Order 41 CPC is applicable but the 1st respondent is not inclined to hear the appeal.