SRI MARIAMMAN KOIL DEVASTHANAM THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE S RAMASWAMI POOSARI Vs. MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS BOARD THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AKONDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to issue a writ of certiorari to the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, to call for the records in connection with their proceedings dated 1st August, 1935, and to quash the same. The petitioner is the managing trustee of Sri Mariamman Koil Devasthanam. By an order dated 17 July, 1934, he was removed from the office of trustee by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board. The petitioner questioned the correctness of the order and applied for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said order in C.M.P. No. 3053 of 1934, and this Court held that that order of the Board was ultra vires and directed the Board to pay the petitioner Rs. 200 for his costs. The Board appears to have paid the amount of costs. On 1 August, 1935, the Board, acting under Section 70 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board Act, assessed the amount of costs and expenses incurred by them in connection with the said proceedings at Rs. 560-14-0 and made a demand of the petitioner for that amount. It is those proceedings of 1 August, 1935K that the petitioner wants to get quashed by this application.

(2.) The contention of the Board is that a writ of certiorari is incompetent in this matter, firstly, because the proceedings of 1 August, 1935, were purely administrative or ministerial, and not judicial, and secondly, because the petitioner has a remedy provided by Section 72(2) of the Act for questioning the correctness of these proceedings. It is also contended that the Board did not exceed the jurisdiction conferred on it by Secs.68 and 70 of the Act in assessing the amount due by the petitioner and making a demand for it.

(3.) It has been held in numerous cases that a writ of certiorari does not lie to quash an order, merely ministerial, and that it is intended for the purpose of adjudicating on the validity of acts judicial. And what are included in the term judicial has again been the subject of numerous decisions. In the case Queen V/s. Corporation of Dublin (1878-1879) L.R. (Ireland) Vol. II, pp. 371 at 376, May, C.J., observed as follows: It is established that the writ of certiorari does not lie to remove an order merely ministerial, such as warrant, but it lies to remove and adjudicate upon the validity of acts judicial.