Allowed

Smt.Muniammal v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC21 Feb 2017WP/24517/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of an impugned order passed by the third respondent for allegedly lacking jurisdiction. The High Court held the order was beyond jurisdiction without going into merits and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the third respondent is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed.

Smt.Muniammal Vs the Joint Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.02.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.24517 of 2013 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

Muniammal .. Petitioner V. 1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, District Collectorate, Villupuram. 2.The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, District Collectorate, Villupuram 3.The Inspector, H.R. & C.E. Department, VSN Complex (1st Floor) Sepperumal Street, Gingee, Villupuram District. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.34/2013 dated 22.08.2013 and to quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner .. Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy For Respondents .. Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh Government Advocate (H.R.& C.E.)

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (H.R. & C.E.) appearing for the respondents.

¶12

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

¶13

2.According to the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the third respondent/the Inspector, H.R. & C.E. Department, Villupuram District, dated 22.08.2013 is without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶14

3.The learned Government Advocate (H.R. & C.E.) appearing for the respondents, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner viz., the first respondent, in paragraph 8, clearly states that the impugned communication passed by the third respondent is beyond the jurisdiction.

¶15

4.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the stand taken by the first respondent in the counter affidavit, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, sets aside the order passed by the third respondent dated 22.08.2013 and accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, granting liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, as contemplated under the Act.

¶16

5.With the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar Sgl To

¶17

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶18

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, District Collectorate, Villupuram.

¶19

2.The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, District Collectorate, Villupuram

¶20

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

¶21

3.The Inspector,

¶22

H.R. & C.E. Department, VSN Complex (1st Floor) Sepperumal Street, Gingee, Villupuram District.

¶23

+1 CC to Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy Advocate Sr.No.10970.

¶24

+1 CC to Government Pleader, High Court, Chennai Sr.No.11416

¶25

.P.No.24517 of 2013
ALA(CO)
KP(07.03.2017)

¶26

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

Smt.Muniammal v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Muniammal 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

S.Jayaselan Vs the Secretary to Government

K.Reeta Vs the Managing Director

K.Janarthanan Vs the Union of India

Rashid Ahmed Vs the Tahsildar

A.Saroja, Vs the Chief Executive Officer

P.Uthrapathi Vs The District Collector