Allowed

V.R.Somasundaram, Managing v. The Commissioner

Madras HC8 Dec 2016WP/42922/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing respondents of HR&CE to consider his representation for appointment as Hereditary Trustee under Section 54 and 6 of the Act. Court directed consideration within three months without adjudicating on claim's merits.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider representation dated 12.11.2016 and pass appropriate orders on merits within three months, without expressing opinion on merits.

V.R.Somasundaram, Managing Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 08.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P. No.42922 of 2016

¶6

and WMP.No.36811 of 2016

¶7

V.R.Somasundaram .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus 1.The Commissioner, The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶9

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶10

The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034

¶11

3.The Executive Officer, Raman Chettiar Kattalai, C/o.Arulmighu Marundeeswarar Temple, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041. .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider the representation dated 12.11.2016 and the letters dated 28.09.2016, 25.10.2016 and 03.11.2016 given by the petitioner for appointing him as the Hereditary Trustee under the scheme which falls within the scope of Section 54(1) and Sec.6(11) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Aravind Subramniam For Respondents : Mr.S.Maharaja

¶14

Spl.Govt.Pleader ( HR & CE)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider the representation dated 12.11.2016 and the letters dated 28.09.2016, 25.10.2016 and 03.11.2016 given by the petitioner for appointing him as the Hereditary Trustee under the scheme which falls within the scope of Section 54(1) and Sec.6(11) of

¶18

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

¶19

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act.

¶20

Though several grounds have been raised in the Writ Petition, now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would only seek to consider the representation dated 12.11.2016.

¶21

Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and would submit that the request of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶22

Considering the submissions made on either side and taking note of the averment made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the 1^st and 2nd respondents, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2016 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.

¶23

6.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Commissioner,

¶27

The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶28

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶29

The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034

¶30

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

¶31

3.The Executive Officer,

¶32

Raman Chettiar Kattalai, C/o.Arulmighu Marundeeswarar Temple, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041.

¶33

+1 cc to Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam Advocate sr 72697

¶34

W.P. No.42922 of 2016 and WMP.No.36811 of 2016

¶35

skv(co)
aa23/12/2016

¶36

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

V.R.Somasundaram, Managing v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.R.Somasundaram, Managing v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahalakshmi Nursing Home Vs The District Appropriate

N.Kannan Vs The Tahsildar

A.Arulappan Vs The District Collector

K.Sakthivel Vs The District Collector

G.Gunasekaran Vs The District Collector

K.Musafarkani, Vs The Tasildhar