S. RAMAMURTHI Vs. V. RANGACHARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these writ petitions differ with regard to the facts, they are being disposed of together, by a common order, in view of one common point argued in all these writ petitions. In all these writ petitions, against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, pasted under the provisions of Chapter V of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959) hereinafter referred to as "the Act", appeals were preferred to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under Section 69 (1) of the Act and the Commissioner by the impugned orders in the writ petitions remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the Deputy Commissioner. The orders of the Commissioner are challenged in these writ petitions and the common point raised in there petitions is that the Commissioner has not power to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) FOR the purpose of considering this point, the first thing to be noticed is the language in which the power of the appellate authority is couched. Section 69 (d) of the Act states : "Any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under any of the foregoing sections of this Chapter may, within sixty days from the date of the publication of the order or of the receipt thereof by him, as the case may be, appeal to the Commissioner and the Commissioner may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit." From this language two facts are clear. One is, the Commissioner is constituted as the appellate authority and the second is, there is no restriction whatever on the power of the Appellate Authority as to the manner of disposal of the appeal or the nature of the order which he can pass on the appeal. On the other hand' the power that has been conferred on the appellate authority is of the widest amplitude, when the section says that the Commissioner may pass such order as he thinks fit. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions contended that there being no specific power conferred on the Commissioner to -remand and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure not being applicable to the proceedings before the Commissioner, the Commissioner has no power to -remand at all. I am unable to accept this contention for more than one reason.

(3.) THIS Court in more than one decision has held that this power of the appellate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act functioning under Section 64 thereof includes the power to remand. Merely by way of illustration, I shall refer to the judgment of Ramachandra Iyer, J., as he then was, in S. Jawarilal Jamad, Proprietor S.J. Bus Service, Madras v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and Ors. W.P. No. 699 of 1958 dated 28 -7 -1960, wherein the learned Judge stated that the Appellate Authority's power to remand is incidental to and consequent upon the setting aside of the order which is the subject -matter of the appeal.