Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Limitation Act to Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Endowment Board appeals: Ganesan vs. The Commissioner (2019) INSC 425 (03 May 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 May 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 425
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a statutory authority like the Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board apply the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delays in filing appeals? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in a recent case. The court examined whether the Commissioner, while hearing appeals under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, could use Section 5 of the Limitation Act to excuse delays. The judgment clarifies the extent to which the Limitation Act applies to proceedings before such statutory bodies. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, with the judgment authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

The appellant, Ganesan, claimed Ambalam rights under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board, after an inquiry, ruled in favor of Ganesan on 21 December 2010, recognizing his Ambalam rights and the right to receive first respect in Tirupathartalu village. This order was challenged in two writ petitions before the High Court, which were dismissed on 10 January 2012. Subsequently, another individual, Laxmanan, filed a writ petition. Meanwhile, P.R. Ramanathan, the third respondent, filed an appeal against the Joint Commissioner’s order under Section 69 of the Act. Ramanathan also filed a writ petition seeking a direction to decide his appeal, which the High Court disposed of on 7 March 2013, directing the Commissioner to decide the appeal within four months.

Ramanathan then filed a delay condonation application on 30 April 2013, seeking a 266-day delay condonation, citing illness as the reason for the delay. Ganesan opposed this application, arguing that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable. The Commissioner, however, condoned the delay on 31 July 2013. Ganesan challenged this order in a writ petition, which was dismissed by a single judge of the High Court. The writ appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 4 December 2017, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Ganesan):

• The Commissioner lacks the jurisdiction to consider applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• The Commissioner, empowered to decide appeals under Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, is not a court.
• Section 6(6) of the Act defines the Commissioner, while Section 6(7) defines the Court, indicating that the Commissioner is not a court.
• Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only to applications filed before a Court.
• Section 115 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, specifically applies Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, indicating that other provisions are not applicable.
• If the Limitation Act were applicable to appeal proceedings, there would be no need for Section 115 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Respondent’s Arguments (The Commissioner and P.R. Ramanathan):

• Although the Commissioner is not a court as defined in the Act, 1959, it is a court for the purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
• Section 110 of the Act states that the procedure for hearing appeals is as nearly as possible in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• The Commissioner has all powers of a court for hearing appeals.
• Authorities under the Act have the trappings of a court and decide appeals judicially.
• The Act does not expressly exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
• Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies because there is no express exclusion of Section 5, therefore Section 5 is attracted in the hearing of an appeal by the Commissioner.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the Commissioner, while hearing an appeal under Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, is a Court?
2. Whether the applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is limited to suits, appeals, or applications filed only in a Court, or if it extends to statutory authorities and tribunals under special or local laws?
3. Whether the Commissioner, while hearing an appeal under Section 69 of the Act, 1959, is entitled to condone a delay in filing an appeal by applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
4. Whether the statutory scheme of the Act, 1959 indicates that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before its authorities?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• P. Sarathy vs. State of Bank of India, (2000) 5 SCC 355 – The Court distinguished this case as it dealt with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, not Section 5. Additionally, a three-judge bench had already held that appellate authorities are not courts.
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, (1975) 4 SCC 22 – This three-judge bench held that appellate authorities under the U.P. Sales Tax Act are not courts, and Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply.
• Town Municipal Council, Athani vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli, (1969) 1 SCC 873 – This case held that the Limitation Act does not apply to quasi-judicial tribunals.
• Nityananda, M. Joshi and others. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, (1965) 2 SCC 199 – This three-judge bench held that the Limitation Act only deals with applications to courts, and a Labour Court is not a court under the Act.
• The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, (1976) 4 SCC 634 – This case clarified that the Limitation Act applies to applications to civil courts, but not to tribunals.
• Sakuru vs. Tanaji, 1985(3) SCC 590 – This case held that the Limitation Act applies only to proceedings in courts, not to quasi-judicial bodies.
• Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal and others, (1996) 9 SCC 414 – This case held that the Land Acquisition Officer is not a court, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply.
• Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others, (2008) 7 SCC 169 – This case held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded in cases where a special statute prescribes a specific limitation period.
• M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015(7) SCC 58 – This case held that the Limitation Act applies only to proceedings in courts and not to tribunals.
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. vs. M/s. Madan Lal Das & Sons, Bareilly, (1976) 4 SCC 464 – The Court distinguished this case as it was not in line with other three-judge bench decisions and did not refer to earlier judgments.
• Mukri Gopalan vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, (1995) 5 SCC 5– The Court held that this case is no longer good law in view of earlier three judge bench judgments.
• State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Anshuman Shukla, (2014) 10 SCC 814– The Court distinguished this case as the revision was filed before the High Court, which is a court.
• Syed Zalil Akhtar vs. Zila Sahkari Krishi Avam Gramn Vikas Bank, Mydt., (2016) 12 SCC 365– The Court distinguished this case as it relied on Mukri Gopalan, which was held to be not a good law.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 6(6) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Defines “Commissioner.”
• Section 6(7) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Defines “Court.”
• Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Enumerates the authorities under the Act.
• Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Deals with appeals to the Commissioner.
• Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Deals with suits and appeals.
• Section 110 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Provides for procedure and powers at inquiries.
• Section 115 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Deals with limitation.
• Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Deals with expiry of prescribed period when court is closed.
• Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Deals with extension of prescribed period.
• Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Deals with exclusion of time for obtaining certified copy.
• Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Deals with exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.
• Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Deals with savings for special or local laws.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• P. Sarathy vs. State of Bank of India, (2000) 5 SCC 355* – Distinguished, as it dealt with Section 14, not Section 5, and was a two-judge bench.
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, (1975) 4 SCC 22* – Followed, as it held appellate authorities are not courts, and Section 14 does not apply.
• Town Municipal Council, Athani vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli, (1969) 1 SCC 873* – Followed, as it held Limitation Act does not apply to quasi-judicial tribunals.
• Nityananda, M. Joshi and others. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, (1965) 2 SCC 199* – Followed, as it held Limitation Act applies only to courts.
• The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, (1976) 4 SCC 634* – Followed, as it held that the Limitation Act applies to applications to civil courts.
• Sakuru vs. Tanaji, 1985(3) SCC 590* – Followed, as it held Limitation Act applies to courts, not quasi-judicial bodies.
• Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal and others, (1996) 9 SCC 414* – Followed, as it held the Land Acquisition Officer is not a court, and Section 5 does not apply.
• Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others, (2008) 7 SCC 169* – Followed, as it held Section 5 of Limitation Act is excluded by special statute.
• M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015(7) SCC 58* – Followed, as it held Limitation Act applies only to courts.
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. vs. M/s. Madan Lal Das & Sons, Bareilly, (1976) 4 SCC 464* – Not followed, as it did not refer to earlier judgments and was contrary to the three judge bench in Parson Tools.
• Mukri Gopalan vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, (1995) 5 SCC 5* – Overruled, as it was held to be not a good law in M.P. Steel.
• State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Anshuman Shukla, (2014) 10 SCC 814* – Distinguished, as the revision was filed before the High Court, which is a court.
• Syed Zalil Akhtar vs. Zila Sahkari Krishi Avam Gramn Vikas Bank, Mydt., (2016) 12 SCC 365* – Distinguished, as it relied on Mukri Gopalan, which was held to be not a good law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by a strict interpretation of the legal provisions and precedents. The Court emphasized that the Limitation Act, 1963, is designed to apply to proceedings in courts, not before statutory authorities or tribunals unless explicitly stated in a special or local law. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, defines “Court” distinctly from the “Commissioner,” indicating that the Commissioner is not a court within the meaning of the Limitation Act. The Court also noted that the Act, 1959, provides for a suo motu power to the Commissioner to correct orders of the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, which shows that the legislature did not intend to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delays.

The Court’s reasoning reflects a strong adherence to the principle that the Limitation Act should not be extended to authorities unless there is a clear legislative intent to do so. The sentiment is that of upholding the statutory scheme of the Act, 1959 and the Limitation Act, 1963 and ensuring that the powers of the authorities are not expanded beyond what is expressly provided in the statutes.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, particularly the respondent’s argument that the Commissioner functions as a court for the purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing the clear statutory distinction between a court and a statutory authority. The Court also rejected the argument that the procedure followed by the Commissioner, which is similar to that of a court, would make the Commissioner a court. The Court also rejected the arguments based on Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, holding that it applies only to proceedings in court.

The final decision was reached by applying the established principles of statutory interpretation and precedent. The Court held that the Commissioner lacks the power to condone delays in filing appeals under Section 69 of the Act, 1959, by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Reasons for the Decision:

• The Commissioner is not a court as defined in the Act, 1959.
• The Limitation Act applies to proceedings in courts, not statutory authorities.
• Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before the Commissioner.
• The statutory scheme of the Act, 1959, does not indicate that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable.
• Section 115 of the Act, 1959, only makes Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act applicable.
• The Commissioner has suo motu powers under Section 69(2), indicating the legislature did not intend to apply Section 5.

“The definition of the Court refers to the Civil Court constituted by Legislature in the State for administration of justice.”

“When an appeal is provided against the order of the Commissioner under Section 69 to the Court which is defined under Section 6(7), there is no question of treating the Commissioner as a Court under the statutory scheme of Act, 1959.”

“We, thus, conclude that Commissioner is not a Court within the meaning of Act, 1959.”

Key Takeaways

• The Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board cannot use Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delays in filing appeals under Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
• The Limitation Act, 1963, primarily applies to proceedings in courts and not to statutory authorities unless explicitly provided in a special or local law.
• Statutory authorities, such as the Commissioner, are not considered courts under the Limitation Act, even if they follow procedures similar to those of a court.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory provisions must be interpreted strictly, and the powers of authorities are limited to what is expressly provided in the statute.

Potential Future Impact:

• This judgment clarifies the scope of the Limitation Act and its applicability to proceedings before various statutory authorities and tribunals.
• It may lead to a more consistent approach in the application of limitation periods in proceedings before such bodies.
• The judgment may also prompt legislatures to explicitly specify whether provisions of the Limitation Act apply to proceedings before statutory authorities in future legislation.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Commissioner dated 31 July 2013, and dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No. 3. However, the Court observed that the dismissal of the appeal does not preclude the Commissioner from exercising his suo motu power under Section 69(2) of the Act, 1959. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the exercise of suo motu power and that it was for the Commissioner to invoke his power if he was so satisfied. Further, this will be without prejudice to any other remedy open to the respondent No.3 in law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board is not a court and, therefore, cannot apply the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delays in filing appeals under Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Supreme Court clarified that the Limitation Act applies only to proceedings before courts and not statutory authorities unless explicitly provided in a special or local law. This judgment reiterates the settled position of law that the Limitation Act is not applicable to quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals unless there is an express provision in the special law. The judgment also clarifies that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not extend the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to statutory authorities, and the Commissioner is not a court for the purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ganesan vs. The Commissioner, The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board & Ors. clarifies that the Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board is not a court and, therefore, cannot apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delays in filing appeals under Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between courts and statutory authorities and reinforces the principle that the Limitation Act applies only to proceedings in courts, unless a special or local law explicitly provides otherwise. The judgment sets aside the High Court’s decision, affirming the strict interpretation of statutory provisions and the limited scope of the powers of statutory authorities.