High Court upholds existing precedent by refusing writ jurisdiction in favor of statutory revision under the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, binding HR&CE authorities and guiding lower courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/31022/2025 of S.S.S.SUNDARAM Vs THE SECRETARY (HR and CE) |
| CNR | HCMA011580052025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 19-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Reaffirms that writ jurisdiction yields to efficacious statutory remedy |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Constitutional & Administrative law (Article 226; HR&CE Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court should refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when Section 21 of the HR&CE Act provides an effective revision remedy |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Applied the principle that discretionary writ jurisdiction will not override an efficacious statutory remedy; exercised supervisory power to condone limitation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 29.05.2025 under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession within 30 days, failing which possession would be taken under Section 79(1). The petitioner sought quashing of that order by writ. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Commissioner, HR&CE Department; Madras High Court benches |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals dealing with writ challenges under the HR&CE Act |
| Follows | Established principle that writ petitions yield to statutory revision remedies under Section 21 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirmed that Article 226 writ petitions should be declined when Section 21 of the HR&CE Act offers an effective revision remedy.
- Even if the statutory time limit for revision has lapsed, the High Court can direct the Commissioner to condone the delay and decide the revision on merits.
- Practitioners must first file revision applications before the Commissioner under the HR&CE Act, using writ jurisdiction only as a last resort.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Discretionary Nature of Writ Jurisdiction
Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary; courts will refuse it if an alternative statutory remedy exists.
- Existence of Statutory Remedy
Section 21 of the HR&CE Act empowers the Commissioner to entertain revisions against Deputy Commissioner’s orders.
- Limitation and Condonation
Although the Commissioner cannot condone delay, the High Court exercised supervisory power to direct condonation of the lapsed 30-day period.
- Remittance for Merits
The petition was remitted to the Commissioner to be decided on merits within a fixed timeline, ensuring procedural fairness.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged an order dated 29 May 2025 issued under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act directing him to vacate and hand over possession of temple property within 30 days, failing which the authorities would take possession under Section 79(1). He filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the directive. The High Court found that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy of statutory revision before the Commissioner under Section 21 of the Act.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 78 (HR&CE Act): Empowers the Deputy Commissioner to issue directions for vacation and handing over of property.
- Section 79(1) (HR&CE Act): Provides authority to take possession on default.
- Section 21 (HR&CE Act): Grants right of revision before the Commissioner against orders of the Deputy Commissioner; statutorily limited to 30 days with no express condonation power.
The Court interpreted the interplay between Article 226 and Section 21 to favor statutory remedy, using supervisory power to override the strict limitation bar.
Procedural Innovations
The High Court directed a statutory authority (the Commissioner) to condone a lapsed limitation period and hear a revision on merits, illustrating its power under Article 226 to ensure an effective remedy.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing principle that writ jurisdiction yields to alternative statutory remedies was affirmed.