Dismissed

Mrs.Lakshmikumari v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Feb 2017WP/3307/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of her claim for the Manasarovar Pilgrimage Subsidy, alleging she completed the trip. The High Court held that since the scheme was already closed and the essential immigration seal was missing from the passport at the relevant time, no legal ground survived the writ petition. The petition was dismissed as nothing remained for consideration.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. The petitioner's claim for subsidy is rejected.

Mrs.Lakshmikumari Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.02.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P.No.3307 of 2017

¶6

Lakshmikumari ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department rep. by its Commissioner,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pursuant to the impugned order in O.Mu.No.39057/2016/K4, dated 02.09.2016 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to pay the Manasarovar Pilgrimage Subsidy amount.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj For 1^st Respondent : Mr.S.Rajeswaran,

¶10

Special Government Pleader

¶11

For 2^nd respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja,

¶12

Special Government Pleader HR&CE

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Challenging the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 02.09.2016, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that he underwent Manasarovar trip from 09.05.2014 to 22.05.2014. After completing the trip, as per the announcement of the 1st respondent granting annual subsidy of Rs.40,000/- out of the Rs.1,00,000/- cost required to travel to Kailash Mansarovar for

¶16

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

¶17

250 Hindu Pilgrims, the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent. But his claim was rejected on 20.06.2014 on the ground to approach the 2nd respondent after appropriate publication in this regard. Hence, once again, on 28.01.2015, after the publication in the Newspaper, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent in person along with the application and all necessary documents. Thereafter, as stated by the 2nd respondent on 09.03.2015 the petitioner sent a representation along with all necessary documents including Income Certificate. Since there was no reply from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner sent a letter to the 1st respondent on 27.07.2016 stating all the above facts for which the 2nd respondent replied on 16.09.2016 that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Selection Team. Once again, the petitioner sent a representation to the 1st respondent dated 14.10.2016 and the same was also rejected on 30.12.2016 by the 2nd respondent stating that at the time of filling application, no immigration seal in his passport. Hence, challenging the said impugned order, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶18

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶19

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent would specifically state that when the petitioner's passport was verified, it is seen that during the relevant period, there is no immigration seal affixed there to substantiate the stand that he has undergone Manasarovar trip during that relevant period and therefore, his case is rejected. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the amount under the said category has already been disbursed and now that scheme is closed and no further application would be entertained. Hence, prays to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

¶20

A perusal of the impugned order dated 02.09.2016 would disclose that the case of the petitioner for granting subsidy for the trip to Manasarovar was rejected, because at the relevant point of time, there is no immigration seal is affixed in his Passport and the same is affixed after a lapse of time. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent would also state the same. Further, as stated by the learned Special Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent, even though the petitioner alleges that he has produced documents to substantiate that he has undergone Manasarovar trip, his claim could not be considered because that scheme is already over. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court is of the view that

¶21

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

¶22

nothing survives in this writ petition.

¶23

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶25

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsi
To
1. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.
+1cc to Mr.A. Saranraj, Advocate, S.R.No.9636
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.9288
cp(CO)
md(21/02/2017)
W.P.No.3307 of 2017

¶26

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

Mrs.Lakshmikumari v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Lakshmikumari v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

K.Kulandaivel Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Murthy Vs the Assistant Legal Advisor &

V.Kanagaraj, Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Murugesan, Vs The Superintendent of Police

7 Star Nanbargal Manamagil Vs The Superintendent of Police

S.Sakthivel Vs The Tahsildar