Allowed

M.Rajagopal, v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC7 Feb 2014WP(MD)/10468/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought a mandatory order directing the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment to dispose of a pending office application within two months, following a specific direction from the Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Directs First Respondent to dispose of O.A.No.59 of 1986 within two months with notice to concerned parties.

M.Rajagopal, Vs the Joint Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.02.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10468 of 2013

¶7

M.Rajagopal : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶10

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, [Administration] Department, Amma Mandapam Road, Srirangam, Trichy.

¶11

2.M.D.Shanmugam Chettiar 3.V.Raveendran : Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to exercise the statutory power expeditiously as per the orders of the learned Commissioner, HR&CE, Administration Department, Chennai 34, made in A.P.No.21 of 2012, dated 18.12.2012, within a reasonable time.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Padmaraj For Respondent No.1 : Mr.T.R.Janarthanam Addl. Government Pleader For Respondents Nos.2&3 : No Appearance

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

¶16

The delay on the part of the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, to dispose of the pending O.A.No.59 of 1986, in spite of a direction issued by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, made the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition.

¶17

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the second respondent, taking advantage of his position as the sole trustee, had committed several acts of misappropriation, besides https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ malpractices. The petitioner,therefore, wanted the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, to take appropriate action.

¶18

¶19

There is a pending proceedings in O.A.No.59 of 1986 before the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department. While disposing of the application in A.P.No.21 of 2012, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, specifically directed the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, to dispose of O.A.No.59 of 1986, within a period of two months. The order was passed, on 18.12.2012. According to the petitioner, the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, failed to take action pursuant to the direction issued by the Commissioner.

¶20

The first respondent is directed to dispose of O.A.No.59 of 1986, as expeditiously as possible. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with notice to all the concerned parties.

¶21

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(T & P)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, [Administration] Department, Amma Mandapam Road,Srirangam, Trichy.

¶27

+1cc to M/s.C.Padmaraj, Advocate, in SR. No.8375.

¶28

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.10468 of 2013 DATED – 07.02.2014

¶29

¶30

msm 26.02.2014 p2/3c

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Rajagopal, v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajagopal, v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Perumal Vs the Tahsildar

E.Reshmi Irene Vs Dd Medical College and Dd

V.Jayaprakash Vs Sigamani

G. Periyasamy Vs the Superintendent of Police

Antony Jegen, Vs the Regional Passport

P.Stalin Aruldas Vs the District Collector