SRI-LA.SRI SUBRAMANIA DESIKA GNANASAMBANDA PANDARASANNADHI versus STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 10-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
17 
A 
SRI-LA.SRI SUBRAMANIA DESIKA GNANASAMBANDA 
PANDARASANNADHI 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
v. 
STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER 
February 10, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
J. C. SHAH 
ANDS. M. S!KRI, JI.] 
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, 
<Mad. Act 19 of 1951), s. 64(4)-0rder under whether quasi-iudicial-
Reasonable opportunity, whether necessary. 
By a notification issued in 1937 the respondent State of Madras 
had made Ch. VI-A of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, 
appl'cable to the Thiyagarajaswami temple at Tiruvarur. In 1956 the 
aforesaid notification was extended for a period of five years begin-
ning on September 30, 1956. 
This was done in exercise of powers 
under s. 64(4)· of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endow-
ments Act, 1951. The appellant challenged the issue of the notifica· 
tion under s. 64(4) in a writ petition before the High Court. At the 
hearing it was urged that the impugned notification was invalid as 
it had been passed without giving a reasonable opportunity to the 
appellant to show cause against it. The High Court while accepting 
this contention, nevertheless refused to issue the writ prayed for 
because: (1) the said plea had not been taken in the writ petition 
and (2) the period for which the notification had been extended was 
shortly due to expire. The appellant came to the Supreme Court with 
certificate of fitness. 
"" 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the two reasons 
given by the High Court for not issuing a writ were wrong. The res-
pondent State on 'he other hand contended that no quasi-judicial 
enquiry was necessary for extending an existing notification under 
s. 64(4) although such an enquiry was necessary before issuing a 
notification for the first time under s. 64(3). 
HELD: (i)" Whether for issuing a notification under 64(3) or for 
extending an ex'sting notification under s. 64(4) the process of ded-
sion is the same. In either case the Government had to satisfy itself 
whether supervision by the Executive Officer under the notification 
is required for public good. The Government cannot legitimately and 
satisfactorily consider the question as to whether the notification 
should be cancelled without hearing the party asking for cancella-
tion; nor can it legitimately and reasonably decide to extend the 
notification without hearing the trustee. Circumstances could arise 
after .the issue of the first notification which would help the Trustee 
to claim that the notification should either be cancelled or should not 
be extended, The nature of the order which can be passed under 
s. 64(4) and its effect on the rights of the Trustee are exactly similar 
to the order which can be passed under s. 64(3). rz5 A-E] 
The High Court was therefore right in holding that it was obli-
gatory on the respondent State as a matter· of natural just'ce to 
give notice to the appellant· before the impugned nOlification was 
passed by it. r25El 
Shri Radeshyam Khare & Anr. v. State of Madh11a Pradesh and 
Ors. [1959] S.C.R. 1440, distinguished. 
18 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
[1965] 3 s.c.R. 
Iii) Although the plea of denial of natural justice had not been 
A 
taken by the appellant in his writ petition, it had been taken in the 
rejoinder, and the respondent thereafter had full notice of the said 
plea. Therefore the first reason given by the High Court for refusing 
the writ was wrong. f25G-Hl 
(iii) The High Court ignored the fact that before it delivered its 
judgment a new Act had come into force, namely, Madras Act XXII 
of 1959, whereby the life of the impugned notification had been n 
extended. Therefore the second reason which weighed with the High 
Court in not issuing a writ in favour of the appellant, that the 
impugned notification would remain in operation for a very short 
period after it delivered its judgment, was also wrong. f26C-El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CIVIL APPEAL No. 560 OF 
1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August I l , I 961 c 
of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 295, of 1958. 
A .. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Thiagarajan for R. Ganapathy 
Iyer, for the petitioner. 
A. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the respon-
dents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar, C.J'. Or August 4, 1956, the Governor of 
Madras issued a notification in exercise of the p.owers conferred 
on him by sub-section (4) of s. 64 of the Madras Hindu Relig

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