S. Manickam, v. the Assistant Commissioner
Case brief
What is this about?
The court closed a writ petition seeking quashing of a temple management notification, holding that the cause for the petition had vanished as the underlying issues were long adjudicated and dismissed, rendering no further adjudication necessary.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition closed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.12.2018
CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.30915 of 2005
and
W.P.M.P.No.33883 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.2677 of 2005
S.Manickam ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious & Endowments Board, Salem & Namakkal District, Salem. 2.S. Narasimhamoorthy 3.S.Natesa Gounder 4.P.Kumaravel 5.Rangasamy 6.Palanisamy (R2 to R6 impleaded as per order dated 27.02.2007 in WPMP 43340 of 2005 in WP 30915 of 2005) ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to the notification issued by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.5970/11042/2002/A,2/135, dated 25.11.2004 and quash the same.
The Notification dated 25.11.2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Salem, is under the challenge in the present writ petition.
2.The parties to the lis on hand, admits the fact that the temple in question is a scheme temple and the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, passed an order under Section 64 of the “HR & CE” Act for appointment of one non-hereditary trustee from a particular community. The said order, calling for the names from one community for the purpose of appointing the non-hereditary trustee.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition should be closed as the cause arises for filing it has vanished and no further adjudication is needed.
Whether the connected miscellaneous petitions should also be closed consequent to the closure of the main writ petition.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S.Manickam
- respondent
Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious & Endowments Board, Salem & Namakkal District
Coram
S.M.Subramaniam
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court