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

Summary

The Tamil Nadu HR&CE Commissioner could not condone delay in a Section 69 appeal by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He was a statutory authority rather than a court; Section 29(2) did not automatically extend the Limitation Act to that forum. Neither court-like procedure nor the special Act’s copy-time exclusion supplied condonation power. The delayed appeal was dismissed, while the Commissioner’s distinct suo motu revisional power and other lawful remedies remained open.

Issues

1. Whether the Commissioner hearing a Section 69 appeal was a court for Limitation Act purposes.
2. Whether Section 29(2) or the special statutory scheme authorised Section 5 condonation.
3. Whether dismissal affected the separate suo motu power.

Provisions considered

• Sections 6(6), 6(7) and 69, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959The Commissioner was distinct from the defined civil court and had no Section 5 power to extend the appeal period; Section 69(2) separately preserved suo motu revision. (¶¶ 9–17, 60–65)
• Section 110, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959Adoption of CPC-type procedure and evidence rules did not turn the authority into a court or incorporate the Limitation Act. (¶ 57–58)
• Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963Did not automatically apply Limitation Act provisions to appeals before statutory authorities or tribunals rather than courts; a special statutory scheme could independently confer applicability. (¶¶ 39, 54–56)

Held

• The Act expressly differentiated the Commissioner from courts and provided a civil suit against specified Commissioner orders. Hearing an appeal judicially did not make him a court. (¶ 9–17)
• The Limitation Act’s automatic operation, including Section 29(2), concerned proceedings in courts. A special or local law could nevertheless make relevant provisions applicable to another authority through its own scheme. (¶ 54–56)
• This scheme supplied no Section 5 power: Section 110 prescribed procedure, Section 115 only excluded requisite certified-copy time, and the rules did not confer condonation. Section 69(2)’s separate corrective power reinforced that conclusion. (¶ 57–63)
• Setting aside condonation and dismissing the appeal did not bar a properly considered exercise of Section 69(2). The Court neither directed nor endorsed its exercise in this case, and preserved other legal remedies. (¶ 64–65)

Result

Appeal allowed. High Court judgment and Commissioner’s delay-condonation order set aside; respondent 3’s delayed appeal dismissed. Commissioner’s Section 69(2) suo motu power and respondent’s other lawful remedies preserved without opinion on their exercise. Parties to bear their own costs.