Dismissed

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

Madras HC21 Sept 2017WA(MD)/1446/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed under the Letters Patents Act. The Court held there was no error in the single judge's order directing the appellant to exhaust the remedy under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, before approaching this Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed with liberty to exhaust remedy under Section 114 of T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959.

R.V.S. Veeramani@v.Mani 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) No.1446 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶7

R.V.S.Veeramani @ V.Mani ... Appellant/petitioner

¶8

-Vs.-

¶9

1.The Commissioner, H.R. And C.E. (Admn.) Department, Chennai-600 034.

¶10

2.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. and C.E.(Admn.) Department, Tiruchirappalli.

¶11

3.R.Varadarajan ... Respondents/Respondents

¶12

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.15107 of 2014 on the file of this Court and thereby allow this appeal.

¶13

Prayer in WP(MD). 15107/ 2014 :

¶14

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 the 1st respondent in A.P.No.31 of 2013 D2, dated 18.8.2014, quash the same.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.J.Anandhavalli For R1 & R2 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for B.Arun

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

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

¶20

This 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.15107 of 2014 on the file of this Court.

¶21

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.

¶22

In such view of the matter, this Writ Appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to exhaust the remedy under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (T.N.Act 22 of 1959). 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. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.The Commissioner,

¶29

H.R. And C.E. (Admn.) Department, Chennai-600 034.

¶30

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶31

H.R. and C.E.(Admn.) Department, Tiruchirappalli.

¶32

+One cc to Mr.B.Arun, Advocate, SR.No.80221 +One cc to M/s.J.Anandavalli, Advocate, SR.No.80253

¶33

sm/pjl

¶34

RL/5C/2P/KK/SAR1/2/11/2017

¶35

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

¶36

W.A(MD) No.1446 of 2015 ( ½)

¶37

21.09.2017

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

M.Valli, Vs the Commissioner