Madras High Court
WP(MD)/29190/2026 of P.Jeyakannan Vs The Commissioner on 13 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 29190 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
WP(MD) No. 29190 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011434122026}
AND
WMP(MD) No. 22162 of 2026
1. P.Jeyakannan
2. A.Sivakumar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.Chennai
2. The Joint Commissiioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District.
4. The Tahsildar
Uthamapalayam Taluk,
Theni District.
5. P. Ganesan
6. P. Pandi
7. P. Duraipandi
WP(MD) No. 29190 of 2026
8. E.Ganesan
9. E. Karuppasami
10.E. Raja
11.M. Mariyappan
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED
MANDAMUS calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in N.Dis.No.3135631/2026/D2, dated 10.09.2026, quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the first respondent to take on file and number the revision/appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the second respondent/Joint Commissioner in Revision Petition No.1 of 2023 dated 17.11.2025, along with the connected stay petition, and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s V.Meenakshi Sundaram
For R1 to R4 :
Mr.R.Parthiban
Special Government Pleader
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioners are third parties to order dated 17.11.2025 of the second respondent. Intending to challenge said order, the petitioner lodged a revision petition/appeal on 12.08.2026. Under the impugned order dated 10.09.2026, the petition was rejected for the reasons specified in the said order.
WP(MD) No. 29190 of 2026
2. Adverting to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the available copy of the order was filed along with the petition and that the petitioners have now obtained a certified copy. Although the petitioners had labelled the challenge as an appeal, learned counsel points out that Section 21 of the statute was referred to therein. As regards the rejection on the ground of limitation, he submits that the time limit under Section 21(7) of the statute runs from the date of communication of the order. He points out that the petitioners asserted that they became aware of the order only on 14.07.2026 and that the petition was lodged within three months therefrom.
3. Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for respondents 1 to 4. He submits that the order dated 17.11.2025 should be construed as an order under Section 63(e) of the statute and that appellate remedies are available in respect thereof. He also points out that the power to condone delay is not available and that the petitioners’ appeal was rejected on that ground.
4. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have expressly referred to Section 21 of the statute. Therefore, the fact that the label ‘appeal’ was used is immaterial. As per Sub-section
WP(MD) No. 29190 of 2026 7 of Section 21, the revision application is required to be presented within three months from the date on which the order was communicated to the applicant. Hence, if the petitioners were to establish that the petition was filed within three months from the date of knowledge or receipt of the order, such petition would be within the prescribed period of limitation and it would become unnecessary to condone the delay.
5. For reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioners produce a certified copy of order dated 17.10.2025. Upon fulfilment of this condition, the revision petition shall be numbered and dealt with in accordance with law. Subject to the revision petition being numbered, any stay application shall also be dealt with on merits expeditiously.
6. This Writ Petition stands disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No (2/2) Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No apd
WP(MD) No. 29190 of 2026 To
1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.
2. The Joint Commissiioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.
4. The Tahsildar Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.
WP(MD) No. 29190 of 2026 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. apd WP(MD) No. 29190 of 2026 AND WMP(MD) No. 22162 of 2026 13-10-2026 (2/2)