Dismissed

T.D.Srinivasan, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC5 Jul 2018WP/15237/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras refused to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging a rent recovery notice. The Court directed the petitioner to avail the specific remedy available under Section 34-A(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act before the appropriate authority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to avail the remedy under Section 34-A(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

T.D.Srinivasan, Vs The Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.07.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

W.P.No.15237 of 2018

¶6

T.D.Srinivasan .. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration Department,

¶9

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶10

The Joint Commissioner (Admin.), Hindu Religious and Charitable Dndowment Administration Department,

¶11

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶12

The Executive Officer, A/m.Selvavinayagar/Kodhanda Ramar Temple, West Tambaram, Chennai – 45. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent pertaining to the Notice dated 26.02.2018 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to furnish the copy the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2003/2017/A3, dated 13.03.2017.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.B.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja, Spl.GP

¶15

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice dated 26.02.2018 of the third respondent / the Executive Officer, West Tambaram, Chennai-45, calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,94,931/-.

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

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

¶18

It is seen that when a similar notice dated 26.02.2018 issued by the very same authority in respect of other shops was put to challenge, this Court, in its order dated 09.04.2018, passed in W.P.Nos.8253 to 8257 of 2018, refused to entertain the writ petition directing the writ petitioners therein to avail the remedy available under Section 34-A(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:-

¶19

“4. This Court also finds that the petitioners have got a better, effective and efficacious remedy as against the impugned proceedings before the first respondent. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed to avail the remedy under Section 34-A(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act before the first respondent. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.10215 to 10219 of 2018 are also dismissed. No Costs.” 4. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition challenging the very same impugned Notice dated 26.02.2018. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No Costs. WMP.No.18064 of 2018 is closed. Sd/Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rkm To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34. 2.The Joint Commissioner (Admin.), Hindu Religious and Charitable Dndowment Administration Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34. +1cc to Mr.B.Sivakumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 43998. W.P.No.15237 of 2018 BM 24/07/2018.

¶20

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

T.D.Srinivasan, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.D.Srinivasan, v. The 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

N.Moorthi, Vs The Inspector General of

A/M.Mangali Amman Thirukoil Vs the Secretary to Government

Ever King Granites Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

M.Palraj, Vs The Superintendent of Police

V.Lakshmi Veeraraghavan, Vs The Director

A.Alahudeen, Vs State of Tamil Nadu