Dismissed

M.Valli, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC21 Sept 2017WA(MD)/1392/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two Writ Appeals filed under the Letters Patents Act. The Court held that the Single Judge did not err in directing appellants to exhaust remedies under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. The Court ordered maintenance of the status quo for four weeks pending the filing of a petition under Section 114.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeals were dismissed. Status quo maintained for four weeks to enable filing of petition under Section 114 of TN HRE Act.

M.Valli, Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.09.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.A(MD)Nos.1392 and 1393 of 2015 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.808 to 811 of 2016 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1, 2, 2 of 2015

¶7

W.A(MD) No.1392 of 2015:

¶8

M.Valli

¶9

... Appellant/petitioner

¶10

-vs.-

¶11

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai-600 034.

¶12

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶13

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madurai-625 001.

¶14

3.Karthick

¶15

4.P.Sivaji Poosari ...Respondents/Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patents Act, to set aside the order dated 30.09.2015 passed in W.P.(MD) No.7189 of 2015 on the file of this Court and thereby allow this appeal.

¶17

Prayer in WP(MD). 7189/ 2015 :

¶18

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court WRIT OF CERTIORARI, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in A.P.46/2014 D2, dated 04.03.2015, quash the same.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

For Appellant : Mr.J.Anandhavalli For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For R-3 : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.N.Ganagasapapathy For R-4 : Mr.R.R.Kannan

¶22

W.A(MD) No.1393 of 2015:

¶23

1.M.Pandiyarajan

¶24

2.M.Sumathi

¶25

... Appellants/petitioners

¶26

-Vs.-

¶27

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai-600 034.

¶28

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madurai-625 001.

¶29

3.Karthick

¶30

4.P.Sivaji Poosari

¶31

...Respondents/Respondents

¶32

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patents Act, to set aside the order dated 30.09.2015 passed in W.P.(MD) No.9423 of 2015 on the file of this Court and thereby allow this appeal.

¶33

Prayer in WP(MD). 9423/ 2015 :

¶34

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned order passed by the1st respondent in A.P. 46/2014 D2, dated 04.03.2015, quash the same.

¶35

For Appellants : Mr.J.Anandhavalli For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For R-3 : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram Senior Counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for Mr.N.Ganagasapapathy

¶36

For R-4 : Mr.R.R.Kannan

¶37

¶38

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶39

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.]

¶40

Since the issue involved in both the writ appeals is one and the same, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by a common order.

¶41

Both the Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patents Act, to set aside the order dated 30.09.2015, passed in W.P.(MD)No.7189 of 2015 and W.P.(MD)No.9423 of 2015 on the file of this Court.

¶42

Heard both side counsels and perused the records.

¶43

We do not find any error in the order of the learned single judge. The learned single judge has rightly directed the appellant to exhaust the remedy under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (T.N.Act 22 of 1959), if the appellant is not satisfied with the said order.

¶44

However, the order of status quo granted by this Court shall be maintained till appropriate orders are passed by the Government. The appellant is given further period of four weeks to file appropriate petition under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. As and when the same is received, the Government shall pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter, after issuing notice to the parties concerned. It is further made clear that this order is subject to the pending proceedings in which the challenge has been made by the Poosari against the order of suspension.

¶45

Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are dismissed with the above directions and observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶48

/True Copy/

¶49

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶50

¶51

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai-600 034.

¶52

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madurai-625 001. +2ccs to Mr.J.Anandavalli, Advocate, SR.No.80252

¶53

+One cc to Mr.R.R.Kannan, Advocate, SR.No.80444

¶54

+One cc to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.80941 sm/pjl

¶55

RL/7c/3p/KK/SAR1/2/11/2017

¶56

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

¶57

W.A(MD)Nos.1392 and 1393 of 2015

¶58

21.09.2017 ( 2 / 2)

M.Valli, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Valli, v. the 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

Selvam @ Mariselvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramesh,S/O.Gnanamuthu, Vs the Inspector of Police

Vetrivel Vs the Superintendent of Police

Singh @ Bhagavathsingh Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Rajarajan, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.V.S. [email protected] Vs the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E