M SADASIVAM PILLAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved, by a notification published in the Fort St. George gazette under Section 3 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Act 1959. The notification is dated 3-11-1970. The circumstances under which the notification was issued are as follows: On receipt of complaints that a charitable endowment known as the Periyanagiammal Annadana Chatram, karungalakudi village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, was being mismanaged, an enquiry was undertaken by the Commissioner at the behest of the Government who issued specific orders to the Commissioner to enquiry or cause an enquiry to be made into the affairs of the said charitable endowment. The Government has such a power to probe into the management of a charitable endowment if it has reason to believe that the public charitable endowment is being mismanaged. On a requisition so made and a directive so issued by the Government under Section 3 (1) it is common ground that, the Assistant Commissioner of Religious and charitable Endowments, for and on behalf of the Commissioner initiated proceedings and called upon the petitioner who was in charge of the said endowment, according to the department to explain the delinquencies alleged against him. This enquiry began in July 1968, but for some reason, was postponed from time to time and ultimately, it was adjourned, to 22-1-1970 for hearing. On that date, as disclosed in the files produced before me, the petitioner filed his objections to the proposal to extend the provisions of the Act to the charitable endowment, and claimed that he had to sole proprietary interest in the lands which are considered by the department as lands belonging to a charitable endowment and set up a claim adverse to the endowment, and claimed that he had had the sole proprietary interest in the lands which are considered by the department as lands belonging to a charitable endowment. He also added that he need not be troubled thereafter with any such enquiry as, according to him he is not obliged to participate in such enquiries and answer any queries arising thereunder. In this state of affairs, the enquiry officer, who enquired into the subject-matter under Section 3 (2) of the Act, drew up a report and submitted the same to the appropriate authority. Under Section 3 (3) of the Act, if the government is satisfied after considering the report of the enquiry officer under section 3 (2) that in the interests of the administration of such charitable endowments within the net of operation of the provisions of the Act. But, under the proviso to Section 3 (3) of the Act, it is imperative that the Government should issue a show cause notice to the person concerned for him to explain against the issue of the notification and it is equally obligatory on the part of the Government to consider any objections made by the addressee in the above behalf. The common case is that such a show cause notice was given on 21-3-1970 and the petitioner showed cause against the issue of the notification under Section 3 (3) of the Act. The Government considered the objections of the petitioner and thereafter issued the challenged notice on 3-11-1970.

(2.) THE contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, to remove the notice by issuing a rule in the nature of certiorari, are two-fold. Firstly, it is said that there was no enquiry or, in any event, no proper enquiry under Section 3 (2) by the appropriate authority officer who undertook such an investigation as required under law and secondly, it is said that, the Government ought not to publish a notification under Section 3 (3) by barely issuing a show cause notice to the affected party without receiving the objections from him and after considering such objections; on the other hand, it is said that before the issuance of such a notification affecting any public charitable endowment and the trustee or the person in management thereof, an effective opportunity by way of a second personal hearing should be given to such trustee or administrator and, in the absence of such a personal hearing, the entire proceeding are vitiated. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would state that as regards the first objection, it was the petitioner who did not want to subject himself to an enquiry which was withdrawn by the officer under S. 3 (2) and petitioner definitely made it clear that he was not inclined to participate in any such enquiry as, according to him, the subject-matter of the enquiry is beyond the purview of the act itself. In his answer to the second contention, the learned Government Pleader would state that the obligation of the Government as set in the content of Section 3 (3) of the Act is limited and there is no further obligation on the part of the government to hear the affected person for a second time as if a full-fledged enquiry is contemplated at that stage too.

(3.) I agree with the learned Government Pleader as set out above.