Disposed

M. Ganesan v. the Jfoint Commissioner

Madras HC28 Feb 2017WP(MD)/3378/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court directed the jurisdictional authority to expedite and dispose of a pending review petition filed by the appellant regarding his refusal of appointment as a priest within three months, subsequently closing the current writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the First Respondent to dispose of the pending Review Petition No.3/2005 within three months.

M. Ganesan Vs the Jfoint Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 28.02.2017

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD)No.3378 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

M.Ganesan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶10

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.Diwan -cum-Administrative Officer, Ramanathapuram Samasthanam,

¶12

Ramanathapuram – 623 501.

¶13

3.The Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station, Aruppukottai,

¶14

Virudhunagar District.

¶15

4.S.Subramanian

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 3 & 4 not to disturb and interfere with the Petitioner's duty as Priest (Poojari) in Arulmighu Bathirakaliamman Temple Palavanatham till the disposal of the Review Petition pending on the file of the 1st respondent in R.P. No.3/2005/C1 dated 21.03.2005.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. G.Thalaimutharasu

¶19

For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.T.R.Janarthanam

¶20

Additional Government Pleader.

¶21

For 4^th Respondent : Mr. P. Subbaraj

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Challenging the order of the second respondent appointing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner as a poojari, a review petition has been filed in R.P.No.3 of 2005 before the first respondent.

¶24

¶25

2.Though the petitioner has raised several grounds in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would be satisfied if a direction is given to the first respondent to dispose of the review petition filed by him as expeditiously as possible.

¶26

3.I am also of the view that the petitioner cannot canvass identical issues before two different forums. Hence, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's review petition in R.P.No.3 of 2005 dated 21.03.2005 and pass orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

4.With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 is closed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶32

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai,

¶33

Sivagangai District.

¶34

2.Diwan -cum-Administrative Officer, Ramanathapuram Samasthanam, Ramanathapuram – 623 501.

¶35

3.The Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station, Aruppukottai,

¶36

Virudhunagar District.

¶37

+1 cc to The Special Government Pleader in SR.No.11609 sms

¶38

CSL/SKN/09.03.2017 :2P/5C

¶39

W.P.(MD)No. 3378 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 28.02.2017

¶40

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

M. Ganesan v. the Jfoint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Ganesan v. the Jfoint 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

Natesan, Vs the Revenue Divisional

S.Pandi Vs the District Collector

M/S. Thoothukudi District Vs the Director

M. Kalyani, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Rahim Brothers Middle School, Vs the District Elementary

Rml.Mani Vs the District Collector