R. SAMBANDAM PILLAI Vs. STATE OF MADRAS, BY COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant before us was granted a lease of certain lands belonging to the Tirukkadayur Devasthanam by the Pandarasannadhi of Dharma -puram who is its hereditary trustee. The lease was for a period of five years from fasli 1363. Under Rule 10 of the rules framed under Section 100(2)(m) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, all leases stipulating an annual rental of Rs. 500 or more or its equivalent in paddy or other produce shall be reported to the Commissioner who shall have power to veto such leases. If within one month from the date of receipt of the report by the Commissioner, no order vetoing or cancelling the lease is received, the lease shall be deemed to have been approved. The lease was reported to the Commissioner on 17th August, 1953. On 17th September, 1953, a telegram was despatched by the Commissioner to the trustee -matathipathi purporting to veto the lease and advising the grant of the lease to cultivators after obtaining the permission of the Deputy Commissioner. This was followed by a communication of an order, dated 16th September, 1953, which runs as follows:

(2.) WHEN the trustees prayed for a reconsideration of the order, the Commissioner informed him that he had exercised the power of veto in time and that his veto was binding on the trustee and the lessee. Thereupon the lessee filed an application to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Commissioner vetoing the lease in his favour. That application came on before Balakrishna Ayyar, J., who dismissed it in limine. Evidently the point seriously pressed before him was that there was, a conflict between Rule 10 of the rules above -mentioned, under which the Commissioner purported to veto the lease, and Section 29 of the Act itself. The learned Judge found no conflict between the two and dismissed the application. This appeal is against that order of Balakrishna Ayyar, J.

(3.) ORDINARILY we would have followed this order with a direction to the Commissioner to reconsider the matter and to consider whether there are valid grounds to exercise his power of veto. But having regard to the fact that nearly five years from the date of the lease shortly will expire, we think it will serve no purpose to have the matter again re -examined. This order should not be taken to mean that we approve of the lease in favour of the appellant on the merits. There will be no order as to costs.