The National Commission for the Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can train the ability of civil courts solely for the restricted goal of summoning people, requiring manufacturing of paperwork, receiving proof on affidavits and so forth however not for issuing everlasting or interim injunctions, the Madras High Court has dominated.
Acting Chief Justice T. Raja and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held, the fee couldn’t give unto itself the ability to grant injunctions, by amending its Rules of Procedure, after the Supreme Court had interpreted Article 338(8) of the Constitution and held categorically that the NCSC was not empowered to take action.
The judges agreed with advocate Naveen Kumar Murthi that the fee couldn’t depend upon Rule 7.2.(a) vii launched in 2009 after the Supreme Court had interpreted the Constitutional provision in 1996 itself within the All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees Welfare Association versus Union of India and others.
In view of the legislation laid down by the apex court docket, the judges allowed a writ petition filed by T.M. Jayaraman of V. Madepalli village in Krishnagiri district and put aside an order handed by the NCSC on October 18, 2022 restraining the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department from evicting a temple land encroacher.
The petitioner, additionally belonging to a Scheduled Caste, advised the court docket that the HR&CE Department had issued eviction notices to 11 people who had encroached upon 3.75 acres of land belonging to the Sakkiyamman Temple at Thasirapalli in Krishnagiri district. One of the encroachers Ok. Srinivasan approached the NCSC. Instead of addressing his grievance to the NCSC chairperson, vice chairperson or the secretary, the complainant had addressed it to one in all its members by title. The grievance was entertained and the HR&CE Department was restrained from taking additional motion in opposition to the complainant till additional orders.
Assailing the injunction order, Mr. Murthi argued that it goes immediately in opposition to the Supreme Court dictum. He additionally contended that the NCSC couldn’t restrain the HR&CE Department from finishing up its statutory responsibility to guard temple lands from encroachments in train of its powers below Section 78 of the HR&CE Act of 1959.
State Government Pleader P. Muthukumar and Special Government Pleader (HR&CE) N.R.R. Arun Natarajan too supported the case of the writ petitioner, and contended that the introduction of Rule 7.2.a. (vii) in 2009 would don’t have any bearing in any respect when the Supreme Court had clearly interpreted the Constitutional provision itself.
Concurring with their submissions, the primary Division Bench put aside the NCSC’s injunction order and imposed prices of ₹2,000 on the complainant earlier than the fee. It ordered that the prices be paid to the Executive Officer of the Sakkiyamman Temple for having “misused the legal process.”
