Disposed

G. Annamalai Nattar v. the Commissioner

Madras HC8 Oct 2018WP/4845/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking mandamus for temple management takeover, the Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to pass orders on a representation regarding mismanagement and failure to furnish accounts, requiring a merit-based inquiry within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Assistant Commissioner (HR & CE) to pass orders on the petitioner's representation within twelve weeks after giving opportunity to all necessary parties.

G. Annamalai Nattar Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.10.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.4845 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶6

G.Annamalai Nattar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
No.119, Nungambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Deputy Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
No.119, Nungambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
3. B.Paranthaman
4. B.Uma Mageshwaran
5. B.Sivakumar
6. B.Surya Narayanan ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus
to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to takeover the management of
ARULMIGU PATTANATTHAR SRI ANGAALA PARAMESWARI AMMAN TEMPLE at
Perumal Naicken Street, Big Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District
from the respondents 3 to 6 and proceed further in accordance
with law against the respondents 3 to 6 on their illegalities in
view of the petitioners representation dated 11.01.2011.
For Petitioner :Mr.J.Ashok
For Respondents 1 & 2 :Mr.M.Maharaja
Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)
For Respondents 3 to 6:Mr.M.Vijayanand

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to takeover the management of Arulmigu Pattanatthar Sri Angala Parameswari Amman Temple situated at Perumal Naicken Streen, Big Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District from respondents 3 to 6, based on the petitioner's representation dated 11.01.2011.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the private respondents by using the name of the petitioner collected donation from the public and they were mismanaging the Temple fund without furnishing the accounts.

¶11

Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 would state that the representation sent to the second respondent forwarded to Assistant Commissioner (HR & CE), Kanchipuram and notice was also issued to the parties, but due to their non co-operation and pendency of the Writ Petition, final order has not been passed.

¶12

Mr.M.Vijayanand learned counsel for the private respondents would contend that the Temple was constructed in a patta land and admittedly, no hundial was installed in the Temple. Further, the petitioner who is one of the pattadhars of the land had passed away about two years ago and after his demise, his son is now one of the Committee Members and there is no mismanagement as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

However, considering the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader that enquiry proceedings were already initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, (HR & CE), Kanchipuram, this Court, without going into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations, directs the Assistant Commissioner, (HR & CE), Kanchipuram to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 11.01.2011 purely on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to all necessary parties, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

rns

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

1.The Commissioner,

¶23

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department No.119, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶24

2.The Deputy Commissioner,

¶25

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department No.119, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.M.Vijayanand , Advocate, S.R.No.69425
+1cc to Mr.J.Ashok , Advocate, S.R.No.69290
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.69772

¶27

W.P.No.4845 of 2011

¶28

CS/12/10/18

¶29

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

G. Annamalai Nattar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Annamalai Nattar 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

Mr.S. Kannisamy Vs the Inspector General of

T.S.Ravindran, Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Mrs.K.Sujatha Vs Mr.K.N.Somanathan

D. Sekar Vs the District Collector

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Vs Tamilnadu Civil Supplies

M/S.Citrex Products Ltd., Vs the District Collector