Disposed

Rm.Ponnalagu Pattar v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC16 Jul 2015WP(MD)/12178/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the respondent to conduct a final enquiry into the petitioner’s claim for performing poojas under a Devadayan status, based on a past order, allowing only four weeks to complete the exercise.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to conduct the enquiry with the petitioner within four weeks of receipt of this order.

Rm.Ponnalagu Pattar Vs the Joint Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.12178 of 2015

¶7

RM.Ponnalagu Pattar

¶8

¶9

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Sivagangai.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation by the letter dated 06.07.2015 in the light of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE in O.A.No.19 of 1964 dated 24.08.1966 and confirmation of “Devadayan”granted on 23.09.1865 to performing poojas and punaskaras as per the schedule in Arulmigu Jeyangonda Nayagi @ Poonkuntra Nayagi Amman Temple, Magipalanpatti, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.07.2015 in the light of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE in O.A.No.19 of 1964 dated 24.08.1966 and confirmation of “Devadayan”granted on 23.09.1865 to performing poojas and punaskaras as per the schedule in Arulmigu Jeyangonda Nayagi @ Poonkuntra Nayagi Amman Temple, Magipalanpatti, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶14

2.Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent.

¶15

3.By consent, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

4.With regard to performing pooja, the petitioner had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ already submitted a representation dated 06.07.2015 and the same is kept pending for consideration. In the meanwhile, in connection with

¶17

¶18

the same subject matter, the respondent / Joint Commissioner had issued notice dated 08.07.2015 for conducting enquiry on 20.07.2015.

¶19

5.In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the petitioner is directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted on 20.07.2015 and the respondent / Joint Commissioner is directed to conduct enquiry and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity to the petitioner as well as the interested parties if any, in the light of O.A.No.19 of 1964 dated 24.08.1966 and also the representation dated 06.07.2015. The said exercise shall be completed with a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

\True copy\

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Sivagangai.

¶27

+1cc to M/s.R.M.Arun Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.No.39119 +1cc to The Special Government Pleader Sr.No.39347

¶28

akm/21.07.15 /2p-4c/

¶29

W.P(MD).No.12178 of 2015 16.07.2015

¶30

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

Rm.Ponnalagu Pattar v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rm.Ponnalagu Pattar 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

King Universe Matriculation Vs the Registrar

Karuppasamy Vs the District Collector

R. Aayirakkal, Vs the Revenue Divisional

K.Indra Vs the District Registrar

M.A. Mohammed Rafiq Vs the District Collector

M.Durai Pandian Vs the Secretary to Government