Dismissed

Ponnusamy, S/O.Kutralingam, v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC20 Jun 2017WP(MD)/11142/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order regarding rent fixation and call for records. The court held the petition was not maintainable as an alternative effective statutory appeal remedy existed under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent was directed to serve the original impugned order within two weeks; service triggers liability to file an appeal within three weeks; status quo maintained pending appeal.

Ponnusamy, S/O.Kutralingam, Vs the Joint Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.06.2017 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.11142 of 2017 and WMP(MD)Nos.8549 to 8552 of 2017

¶5

Ponnusamy : Petitioner

¶6

-vs-

¶7

1.The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Sivagangai.

¶8

2.Aruppukottai, Puliyampatti-Thirunagaram Saliyar Mahajana Paribalana Sabaikku Parthiyapatta Arulmighu Maha Kaliamman Vagaiyara Thirukovilgal, represented through its Trustee N.A.Subramaniam : Respondents

¶9

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4913/2016-6/A3, dated 10.02.2017 and the consequential communication of the 2^nd respondent herein dated 15.03.2017and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents herein to re-fix the fair rent for Door No.27-2-52 of Aruppukottai Municipality, Virudhunagar District, after issuing notice to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar For 1^st Respondent : Mr.D.Muruganandham Additional Government Pleader For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The writ petition is filed to call for the records of the impugned order, dated 10.02.2017 passed by the 1^st respondent and the consequential communication of the 2^nd respondent, dated 15.03.2017 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents to re-fix the fair rent for Door No.27-2-52 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Aruppukottai Municipality, Virudhunagar District, after issuing notice to the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶15

3.It is submitted by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 that against the impugned orders passed by the respondents, appeal remedy is available to the petitioner under section 34A sub clause (3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 and therefore, the petitioner has to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of HR & CE.

¶16

4.Undisputably, the petitioner is having an alternative and effective remedy, however, without exhausting the same, the writ petition came to be filed. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶17

5.In view of the same , this writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner, as per section 34A sub clause (3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959.

¶18

6.It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though the 2^nd respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 15.03.2017, so far the original order was not served to the petitioner. Hence, the 2^nd respondent is directed to serve the original impugned order, dated 15.03.2017 to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy and on such receipt, the petitioner shall file an appeal before the appropriate forum, within a period of three weeks therefrom. Till then, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo as on today.

¶19

7.With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Sivagangai.

¶27

¶28

2.The Additional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶29

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 61475 +1cc to M/S.V.Sasikumar, Advocate SR.No. 61143

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.11142 of 2017 20.06.2017

¶31

¶32

JM/SV MMS/SAR 1/30.06.2017/3P/5C

¶33

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

Ponnusamy, S/O.Kutralingam, v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnusamy, S/O.Kutralingam, 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.Sudhakhar Vs the President, District

R.Senthil Kumar Vs Savio Cristo Nayagam

B Veeraraghavalu Vs Vikram Kapur

R.Josephin Rose, Vs the Chairman, Central Board

S.Sarasu, W/O.Singamuthu Vs the Deputy Inspector General

Ibrahim Sha Vs the District Revenue Officer