Dismissed

K.Raju, v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC4 Apr 2018WP/7679/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras dismissed a writ petition filed by a self-identified poojari of Arulmighu Rasakovil, Bethampalayam, who sought a declaration for taking over the temple by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The Court found the petition wholly unmaintainable and misconceived as no documentary proof of the petitioner's status or ownership was enclosed, rendering it ber

What did the court decide?

No relief. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of being unmaintainable, lacking documentary proof of standing or ownership, and being bereft of particulars.

K.Raju, Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

W.P.No.7679 of 2018

K.Raju

.. Petitioner

-vs-

The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments
Administration Department
Erode
2. The Inspector
Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments
Administration Department
Perundurai .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to consider the representation dated 13.05.2013 and
20.02.2018 to take action in accordance with law.

¶10

For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Kumar
For Respondents :: Mr.M.Maharaja
Special Government Pleader
(H.R.& C.E.)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by one of the poojaris seeking a wholly unmaintainable and misconceived prayer that the temple in question should be taken over by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner although pleaded before this Court that the petitioner is one of the poojaris of Arulmighu Rasakovil, Bethampalayam, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District, no document whatsoever has been enclosed along with the writ petition to prove that the petitioner is the poojari of the said temple. Again the petitioner has not mentioned anywhere on what basis he is entitled to maintain the writ petition.

¶14

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

¶15

When the two page affidavit has failed to mention as to who is the owner of the temple and the reason for seeking a direction to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to take over the temple in question, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition which is fully bereft of any particular. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ss
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments
Administration Department,
Erode.
2. The Inspector
Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments
Administration Department
Perundurai.
+ 1 cc to Mr. Government Pleader SR.25339
ssW.P.No.7679 of 2018
SKV(CO)
EU(20/04/2018 )

¶17

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

K.Raju, v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Raju, v. The Assistant 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

L.Karthik Gnanasekaran, Vs The Territory Manager (Lpg)

Sekar, Vs Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Mrs.Nirmala Devi Vs The Tahsildar

S.Sivagami Vs The Executive Engineer

K.Pramila, Vs The Regional Manager

R.B.Pazhanivel Vs The Deputy Registrar