Allowed

Udhayakumar Joshi v. the Commissioner

Madras HC16 Dec 2016WP(MD)/5612/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was allowed making it infructuous as the prayer sought in the petition became infructuous due to prior action taken. Consequently, the writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Divided by showing disability seeing the issue to the respondent the petitioner Udhayakumar Joshi, the petitioner. The writ petition and connected misc petitions are allowed.

Udhayakumar Joshi Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 16.12.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.5612 of 2015

¶7

and

¶8

M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

Udhayakumar Joshi

..Petitioner

1.The Commissioner,

¶13

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments(Admn.) Department,

¶14

No.119,Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

¶15

Nungambakkam,Chennai-34.

¶16

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶17

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments(Admn.) Department,

¶18

Sivagangai.

¶19

3.The Joint Commissioner/

¶20

Executive Officer,

¶21

Arulmighu Ramanathaswamy Thriukkoil, Rameswaram,

¶22

Ramanathapuram District.

¶23

...Respondents.

¶24

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from performing the ceremony of Palalayam in Arulmighu Kanthamathana Parvatham Temple, Rameswaram on 14.4.2015 and 15.4.2015.

¶25

For Petitioner :M/s.J.Anandhavalli

¶26

For Respondents :Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen 1 and 2 Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶27

For Respondent-3 :Mr.V.Raghavachari

¶28

ORDER

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous and

¶30

¶31

has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶32

2.In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

vsn To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments(Admn.) Department, No.119,Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam,Chennai-34. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments(Admn.) Department, Sivagangai. 3.The Joint Commissioner/ Executive Officer, Arulmighu Ramanathaswamy Thriukkoil, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District. +1cc to Ms.Anandhavalli Advocate Sr.No. 81540 +1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari Advocate Sr.No. 81650 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 81379 JAM/28.12.16/EM/ 2p-7c

¶34

W.P(MD)No.5612 of 2015 and

¶35

M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶36

16.12.2016

¶37

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

Udhayakumar Joshi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udhayakumar Joshi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Duraisamy Thevar, Vs the Secretary to Government

P.Madasamy, Vs the District Collector

Nagasundaram, Vs the District Registrar

Prabhakaran @ Pandiyan, Vs the District Registrar

G.Ganesan Vs the Commissioner

A. Saravanan Vs the Executive Officer