Disposed

S.Alagupandian, v. the District Collector

Madras HC29 Jan 2018WP(MD)/1527/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Endowments Department to consider a representation for permission to reconstruct a dilapidated building opposite a temple. The court ordered a decision on merits within twelve weeks and disposed of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent 3 to consider the representation and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

S.Alagupandian, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.01.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1527 of 2018

¶7

S.Alagupandian ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
3. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowments Department, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.
5. Chinnamuthu
6. Perumalsamy ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to grant permission to
construct the building opposite to the Sangu Vinayagar Temple, Umaiyathalaivapatti Village, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For R1 to R4 : Mrs.J.Padmavathy Devi, Special Government Pleader.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The relief sought for in the Writ Petition is for a direction to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to grant permission to

¶10

¶11

construct the building opposite to the Sangu Vinayagar Temple, Umaiyathalaivapatti Village, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ

¶13

petitioner made a submission that the portion of the building in front of the temple is in a dilapidated condition and the same is to be reconstructed in the larger public interest.

¶14

3.The learned counsel pleads that the decision taken by the temple management and the devotees was that a new construction is to be put up in that area, where the building is in a bad condition. In this regard, the writ petitioner has given a representation to the respondents 1 to 4 on 11.12.2017 and the temple being under the administrative control of the HR & CE Department, such a permission is required. However, the respondents have not taken any decision and the building has to be replaced by new construction.

¶15

4.Thus, without going into the merits of the matter, the third respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 11.12.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is directed to enclose the copy of the representation and the documents, if any, along with the order passed in the Writ Petition.

¶16

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶17

/True Copy/

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶21

The Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶22

The Joint Commissioner,

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hindu Religious and Endowments Department, Tirunelveli District.

¶24

¶25

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

¶26

1 cc TO Mr.R.J.Karthick , Advocate in SR No. 44397 + 1 cc TO The Special Government Pleader in SR No. 44798

¶27

Myr/ta

¶28

AE/RSK/SAR4/07.02.2018/3P/7C

¶29

W.P(MD)No.1527 of 2018 29.01.2018

¶30

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

S.Alagupandian, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Alagupandian, v. the District Collector

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

P.Babu, Vs the Director of School -

Kremmer Sandegren Foundation Vs the District Registrar

S. Balasubramanian Vs the Union of India

M.Krishnasamy, S/O.Mottayyan Vs the Commissioner

N.Jegatheesan, Vs the Executive Director

N.Vadivel, S/O.Late.Nalluchamy Vs the District Collector