PATHIKARASI Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMN DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order dated 10.8.2007 passed in A.P.No.1 of 2006 on the file of Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Thirukoil, Kancheepuram.) THIS revision has been directed against the order passed in A.P.No.1 of 2006 on the file of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner,H.R.& C.E. Admn. Department, Chennai-34 which had arisen out of an order dated 1.7.2005 on the file of Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Temple, Kancheepuram.

(2.) THE impugned order of the Executive Officer dated 1.7.2005 was passed under Section 34(A) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act ,1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 and 39 of 1996 Amended Act 25 of 2003). Under the said order, the Executive Officer had raised and fixed the monthly rent for the schedule property measuring about 1 ground 541 sq.ft as Rs.2,200/- from 1.11.2000 to three years. THE said order of the Executive Officer, was challenged before the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board under A.P.No.1 of 2006 under Section 34(A)(3) of the said Act. THE Commissioner, after holding that the fixation of rent was prepared as per the guide lines given in G.O.Ms.No,353, C.T. & R.E. Department dated 4.6.1999, had dismissed the appeal petition filed by the revision petitioner herein.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-temple would represent that in the said ratio, the counsel for the petitioner had reported no instructions and only under such circumstances, the Court has observed that for no fault of the petitioner, he should not be allowed to suffer by an order of the Court. But the case on hand is still worse because in this case, neither the appeal petitioner nor the counsel appearing for him was present on the date of hearing to place the grievance of the petitioner before the Commissioner. In the absence of the Advocate, the Commissioner ought to have issued notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case to be remanded to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner H.R& C.E.Admn. Department, Chennai - 34 for fresh consideration, after giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner to place his grievance before the Commissioner.