Dismissed

Arulmigu Vedaranyeswarar v. 1.THE Union of India Rep.by

Madras HC11 Dec 2017WP/39946/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandamus for tendering an annual lease amount in cash equivalent to 1848 Pagodas under an 1806 agreement. The Court held that such merits-based financial disputes are outside its jurisdiction under Article 226 and should be decided by a competent Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ respondent's prayer for a mandamus to tender the annual lease amount as cash equivalent to 1848 Pagodas was dismissed.

Arulmigu Vedaranyeswarar Vs 1.THE Union of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.39946 of 2002

¶6

Arulmigu Vedaranyeswarar Swami Devasthanam Represented by the Executive Officer, Vedaranyam,

¶7

Nagapattinam District. ...Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1. The Union of India Represented by The Secretary Ministry of Industry Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶9

The Deputy Salt Commissioner Office of the Deputy Salt Commissioner 26, Haddows Road, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to tender the annual lease amount in money equivalent as on the date of the tender in compliance of the document dated 31.12.1806 entered into between the petitioner and the predecessor in interest of the respondents in respect of an extent of 2425.95 acres of salt pans in Agasthiampatti village, vedaranyam.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.J.Madana Gopal Rao,

¶13

Senior Central Government Standing Counsel

¶14

The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to tender the annual lease amount in money equivalent as on the date of the tender in compliance of the document dated 31.12.1806 entered into between the petitioner and the predecessor in interest of the respondents in respect of an extent of 2425.95 acres of Salt pans in Agasthiampatty Village, Vedaranyam.

¶15

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

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for writ of mandamus on the strength of an alleged agreement entered into between one Wallace representing East India Company and the Devasthanam on 31.12.1806. Only a typed copy of the said document has been filed in the writ petition, based on which the petitioner seeks a mandamus to the respondents to give the value of the lease amount by cash which is equallent to 1848 Pagodas. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, what actually happened at the time of leasing out the land to salt pans, to the respondents 200 years ago, cannot be gone into, by invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the issue can be resolved by approaching competent Civil Court.

¶18

Heard both sides. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the issue raised in this writ petition cannot be gone into in the jurisdiction of this Court by invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the money value of the 1848 Pagodas as lease amount from the respondents or the respondents are liable to pay such an amount to the petitioner, can be decided by competent Civil Court after adjudicating the issue by conducting trial. In view of the above, this Court is not going into the merits of the case and not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Parties are at liberty to approach the civil Court. Accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

dpq

¶22

¶23

+1cc to Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan, Advocate, S.R.No.88034 +1cc to Mr.J.Madana Gopal Rao, Advocate, S.R.No.87902

¶24

W.P.No.39946 of 2002

¶25

CS/23/01/18

¶26

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

Arulmigu Vedaranyeswarar v. 1.THE Union of India Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmigu Vedaranyeswarar v. 1.THE Union of India Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Thiru Manjunath

R.Subbaraya Gounder Vs Chairman, T.N.E.B.,800

G.Marimuthu Vs 1.STATE of Tamilnadu Rep.by

M/S.Ashok Leyland Ltd., Vs 1.STATE of Tn Rep.by Secy.

Dr.M.Muthukorakkan Vs the Secretary to Government

T.S.Thiagarajan Vs Dist Judge-Cum-Tribunal for Co.