Madras HC Rejects Hereditary Trustee’s Contempt Plea, Says Stay On Her Removal Did Not Order Reinstatement

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s allegation that her defence was not properly considered established a violation of natural justice warranting relief under Article 226, or whether she should pursue the statutory civil remedy.

The court held

The Court dismissed both the contempt petition and the writ petition.

It also directed

It granted the petitioner liberty to bring a civil suit challenging the removal order and directed that the civil court entertain the suit, which the petitioner undertook to file within four weeks of receiving the order.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

The petitioner, a hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Vanabadrakaliamman Temple, challenged a Government Order permanently removing her from that post.

p. 3

She alleged that her response to the show-cause notice had not been properly considered.

p. 3

The State submitted that she had participated in the proceedings, her defence was included in the 150-page order, and her remedy was a civil suit under Section 53(6) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

pp. 3–7

The Court had earlier granted an interim stay of the removal order and extended it until further orders.

pp. 3–7

The petitioner then sought contempt proceedings, arguing that the stay required her reinstatement.

pp. 3–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s allegation that her defence was not properly considered established a violation of natural justice warranting relief under Article 226, or whether she should pursue the statutory civil remedy.

pp. 5–6

ii.2. Whether the interim stay of the removal order required the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, such that their failure to do so constituted contempt.

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

Section 53(6) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 provides the relevant civil-court remedy for challenging the decision concerning removal of a hereditary trustee; grievances about the appreciation of facts, documents, or evidence may be raised in that suit.

p. 3

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice and Article 226, holding that a complaint about the manner in which a decision-maker assessed a defence does not, by itself, establish a natural-justice violation where the affected person was given a hearing and participated in the proceedings.

pp. 5–6

Under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, contempt requires disobedience of a court order; an interim stay of a removal order is not, without an express direction, a positive order to reinstate the person.

pp. 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 11

TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959 Section 53

04Reasoning

The petitioner had received an opportunity to be heard, participated in the proceedings, and had her defence incorporated into the impugned order.

pp. 5–7

The Court therefore treated her complaint as one concerning the assessment of her evidence and submissions, rather than a denial of natural justice; those matters could be raised in a civil suit under Section 53(6).

pp. 5–7

As to contempt, the interim order stayed the removal order but did not expressly direct reinstatement.

pp. 6–7

The respondents’ failure to reinstate the petitioner therefore did not amount to disobedience of a specific court direction.

pp. 6–7