GANESAN REP BY ITS POWER AGENT G. RUKMANI GANESAN versus THE COMMISSIONER, THE TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BOARD & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 03-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
GANESAN REP BY ITS POWER AGENT G. RUKMANI
GANESAN
v.
THE COMMISSIONER, THE TAMIL NADU HINDU
RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BOARD &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4582 of 2019)
MAY 03, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Hindu Religious Endowment Charitable Act, 1959 – ss.6(6),
6(7), 63, 69, 70, 110 and 115 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 –
Applicability of – Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Board passed an order holding that appellant
was entitled for Ambalam right in his village – Third respondent
filed an appeal u/s. 69 of the Act – A delay condonation application
was also filed by the third respondent praying for condonation of
delay of 266 days – Delay was condoned by the Commissioner –
Writ petition was filed by the appellant against the order condoning
delay – Single Judge of the High Court held that in appeal
proceedings before the Commissioner s.5 of the Limitation Act was
fully applicable – Division Bench of the High Court held that Act,
1959 does not exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963
– On appeal, held: The provisions of Limitation Act including s.5
can be applied in deciding an appeal by statutory authority which
is not a Court by the statutory scheme of special or local law –
Commissioner is not a Court within the meaning of the Act, 1959 –
There is nothing u/s.110 of the Act, 1959 which indicates that
Limitation Act is also made applicable in hearing of appeal – The
provision of s.69 of Act, 1959 also indicates that Legislature never
contemplated applicability of s.5 of the Limitation Act in proceedings
before Commissioner – Further, s.115 of the Act, 1959 indicates
that provision for only computation of limitation has been made
applicable the proceedings under Act, 1959 – s.115 of the Act, 1959
cannot be read in a manner as to providing applicability of s.5 of
the Limitation Act – There is no other provision in the scheme from
which it can be inferred that Act, 1959 intended applicability of s.5
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 102
102
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
103
of the Limitation Act to the proceedings of appeal before the
Commission – Thus, s.5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable as
per the scheme of the Act, 1959.
Hindu Religious Endowment Charitable Act, 1959 – s.69 –
Appellant contended that the Commissioner who is empowered to
decide the appeal u/s. 69 of Act, 1959 is not a Court – Held: The
definition of Court as contained in s.6(7) indicates that what Act,
1959 refers to a court is a civil court created in the State – The
scheme of the Act clearly indicates that Commissioner is an authority
under the Act who is to be appointed by the Government – The
Commissioner is entrusted with various functions under the Act and
one of the functions entrusted to the Commissioner is hearing of
the appeal u/s. 69 of the Act, 1959 – Further, any party aggrieved
by the order of the Commissioner u/s. 69(1) and 69(2) can file a
suit in the Court u/s.70 against such order – When an appeal is
provided against the order of the Commissioner u/s. 69 to the Court
which is defined u/s.6(7), there is no question of treating the
Commissioner as a Court under the statutory scheme of Act, 1959 –
Thus, Commissioner is not a Court within the meaning of Act, 1959.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Whether the Commissioner while hearing the
appeal under Section 69 of Hindu Religious Endowment
Charitable Act, 1959 , is a Court ?
1. The definition of Court as contained in Section 6(7)
clearly indicates that what Act, 1959 refers to a Court is a civil
court created in the State. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates
that Commissioner is an authority under the Act who is to be
appointed by the Government. The Commissioner is entrusted
with various functions under the Act and one of the functions
entrusted to the Commissioner is hearing of the appeal under
Section 69 of the Act, 1959. [Para 15] [113-E]
2. Section 70 of the Act further provides that any party
aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) of Section 69 can file a suit in the Court
against such order. When an appeal is provided against the order
of the Commissioner under Section 69 to the Court which is
defined under Section 6(7), there is no question of treating the
GANESAN v. COMMNR., T.N. HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS BOARD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
Commissioner as a Court under the statutory 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.