National Commission For Scheduled Caste Has Powers Of Civil Court But Cannot Pass Interim or Permanent Injunction Orders: Madras High Court

The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the law in this regard has already been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association and others wherein it has been held that when the commission is not specifically granted powers to issue an injunction, it cannot not pass an order as such.

"In view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association and others, supra, we hold that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to pass the order of interim injunction dated 18.10.2022."

The court was dealing with a petition filed by one Jayaraman challenging the order passed by the Commission wherein it had injuncted the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department from taking any further action in respect to a land belonging to the Arulmigu Sakiyamman Temple.

One K Srinivasan had filed a complaint with the commission alleging that the department had cut the electricity supply to his land due to discrimination. The commission had made the impugned order in this matter. Jayaraman informed the court that Srinivasan had in fact encroached upon the temple property and that notices were issued to 11 persons including Srinivasan.

Jayaraman contended that Srinivasan had not followed procedure and had filed a complaint to a member of the Commission instead of the Chairman/Vice Chairman/Secretary of the Commission or the heads of its State Offices as per law. It was also submitted that although the commission has the powers of a civil court, it cannot pass an order of injunction.

Srinivasan, one of the respondents in the petition, contended that since the commission was already dealing with the matter, the plea was not maintainable. It was also submitted that Jayaraman had no locus standi and if he had any grievance, he should have approached the commission.

The HR & CE department and the Executing officer of the temple sided with the petitioners and argued that there was a gross misuse of the process of law by Srinivasan in approaching the commission. It was submitted that the land belonged to the temple and thus notices were sent to 11 encroachers including Srinivasan and thus the complaint was malafide.

The court found merit in the argument of the petitioner and the respondent authorities. The court noted that the Commission had not followed due procedure and thus its order suffered from infirmity.

"The Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India has made it clear that the Commission although enjoys the power of the Civil Court does not have the power to grant injunctions either temporary or permanent. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that there is infirmity in the order passed by the Commission."

The court thus set aside the order passed by the commission and further directed Srinivasan to pay a cost of Rs 2000 to the Executing Officer of the temple for misusing the legal process.

Case Title: Jayaraman TM v The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 136

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi for Mr.G.V.Mohan Kumar and Mr.C.Palanisamy 

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.G.Ilangovan CGSCC, Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader, Mr.Srinath Sridevan Senior Counsel for Mr.Bhagavath Krishnan, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Spl. Govt. Pleader (HR&CE)