Subramanian I vs. The Commissioner

Held

The Court found a lack of clarity in the impugned order regarding the precise reason for refusing the NOC. It was unclear whether the document was simply not on file or if no sanction had ever been granted under the relevant Act for alienation. Consequently, the Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim or the respondents' objections. Instead, it directed the respondents to reconsider the matter. The 3rd respondent was instructed to issue a notice to the petitioner for a hearing within four weeks. The petitioner was permitted to submit his representation, along with relevant documents and judgments. The 3rd respondent would then pass a fresh order in accordance with the law after considering the petitioner's submissions and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must provide clear and unambiguous reasons for their decisions, and parties must be given an adequate opportunity to present their case when there is uncertainty in the grounds of refusal.

Facts

The petitioner, I. Subramanian, sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 16.11.2023 by the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer of Arulmighu Subramaniyasamy Thirukovil, Thirupparankundram. This order refused to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the sale of property in Survey No. 187, measuring 5 cents in Thirupparankundram, Madurai. The refusal was based on the unavailability of a memo application dated 23.06.1952 and the assertion that the property was classified as Government poramboke. The petitioner's request for an NOC stemmed from a previous High Court order in W.P(MD)No.27507 of 2020 directing the disposal of his representation. The property's history involved a sale from the temple in 1953, followed by subsequent transfers, including a registered Will.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 3rd respondent was justified in refusing to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) solely on the ground that the relevant memo application dated 23.06.1952 was not available on file, despite the existence of a sale deed dated 16.01.1953 based on earlier proceedings of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order's reasoning for refusal was the non-availability of the memo application, not a lack of sanction. He contended that the respondent could not refuse the NOC merely because a document was not on file, and that the property was originally sold by the temple. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents contended that no sanction was granted as contemplated under the HR&CE Act, and any sale without sanction would be null and void under Section 34 of the Act. They also noted the property was classified as Government poramboke.