Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Velayutham, filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court challenging a communication dated 06.01.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department, Cuddalore. The communication asked the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner for an enquiry along with necessary documents on 22.01.2020. The background of the case involves a connected writ petition, W.P.(MD).No.1057 of 2018, filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court concerning mismanagement of properties belonging to Sengol Madam, Tirunelveli District. On 01.02.2018, the Madurai Bench suo-motu impleaded many Mutts in Tamil Nadu, including the one referred to in the present petition, as a respondent. The Madurai Bench issued various directions to the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, and to the Heads of Madathipathis to submit details of properties, income, lease particulars, etc. The Commissioner was also directed to collect these particulars and submit them to the Court. The impugned communication was a result of the order passed by the High Court in that writ petition. The petitioner did not challenge the earlier order of the Madurai Bench. The court noted that the communication was only a consequential order of the Commissioner on the directions issued by the Court. The court further observed that the procedure for conducting an enquiry under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, requires a reasoned order to be passed by the Registering Authority. After the enquiry, an aggrieved person may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 72, and thereafter, a suit may be instituted under Section 73 of the Act. Since the Act provides an alternate remedy for redressal of grievance, the writ court cannot adjudicate the disputed issues. The court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and avail the statutory remedies if aggrieved.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternate Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Petitioner challenged a communication under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, calling him for enquiry - Court held that the Act provides a complete statutory scheme: enquiry under Section 71, appeal under Section 72, and suit under Section 73 - Writ Court cannot adjudicate disputed issues when alternate remedy exists - Petition dismissed as not maintainable (Paras 3-4). B) Religious Endowments - Mutt Properties - Suo-motu Impleadment - Consequential Order - Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD).No.1057 of 2018 suo-motu impleaded several Mutts including the one in present case - Directions issued to Commissioner to collect property details - Impugned communication was consequential to those directions - Petitioner did not challenge the earlier order - Held that the communication was only a follow-up action and not a final order (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a communication issued under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, calling for an enquiry, when the Act provides an alternate remedy of appeal and suit.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to participate in the enquiry and if aggrieved, avail the remedy of appeal under Section 72 and suit under Section 73 of the Registration Act, 1908. No costs.
Law Points
- Alternate remedy
- Writ jurisdiction
- Section 71 Registration Act
- 1908
- Section 72 Registration Act
- Section 73 Registration Act
- Consequential order
- Suo-motu impleadment
