Petitioners sought a writ to quash an order settling a scheme for a temple under the HCET Act. The Court found an appeal remedy existed and dismissed the writ as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appellate authority.
Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the appeal remedy under the statutory provision.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.[MD]No.22007 of 2018 and W.M.P.[MD]No.19968 of 2018
1.A.Paulpandi 2.V.Raja 3.M.Karthick 4.S.Kathiresan 5.P.Ramachandran 6.R.Venkatesh 7.K.P.Senthilmani 8.K.Thirupati 9.N.Murugesan 10.P.Radhakrishnan : Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai – 625 001. 2.The Fit Person / Thakkar, Arulmighu Sri Santhana Mariamman Thirukoil, Thideer Nagar, Madurai. 3.B.Radhakrishnan 4.V.Kutty @ Karuppaiah 5.P.Bhagavathiraj 6.G.Kathirvelpandian 7.S.Seenivasan 8.S.Murali 9.S.Bose 10.V.Illayaraja 11.P.S.Ramu 12.K.Ganesan 13.G.Sivajothi 14.P.Palaniammal 15.K.Paulraj 16.A.Govarthanan 17.O.P.Chelladurai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18.S.Jeyaprakash 19.V.P.Mani
2
20.A.Muthu 21.M.Manikandan 22.S.P.Subbiah
23.M.Balaguru 24.S.M.Senthilkumar
25.K.Srinivasan 26.P.Marisamy 27.K.P.Suresh 28.M.Manikandan 29.R.Ramesh Aasari 30.A.P.Mani 31.A.Kasimayan 32.S.Saravanakumar : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order of the first respondent in I.A.No.20 of 2018 in O.A.No.11 of 2009 dated 14.09.2018 and quash the same and consequently allow the impleading petition and further direct the first respondent to follow the provisions of Framing of Scheme Rules, issued under Section 64 of the Act, 1959 and decide the issue for settling scheme to the “Arulmigu Santhanamariamman Temple” situated at Thideer Nagar, Madurai.
For Petitioners : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.Jeyakumar Additional Government Pleader For Respondents 3 to 5 : Mr.S.Madhavan For Respondent No.6 : Mr.S.Manohar
O R D E R
When this Court expressed its intention to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that there is an appeal remedy under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the appeal remedy in terms of the Statutory Provision.
2.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to avail the appeal remedy. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
3
MR
To
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai – 625 001.
+1cc to Mr.H.Arumugam, Advocate in SR No.93202 +1cc to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate in SR No.93159 +1cc to Mr.S.Madhavan, Advocate in SR No.92923 +1cc to Spl Government Pleader, SR No.93395
W.P.[MD]No.22007 of 2018
NM /RP/SAR IV/14.11.18/3P/6C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
1.A.Paulpandi 2.V.Raja 3.M.Karthick 4.S.Kathiresan 5.P.Ramachandran 6.R.Venkatesh 7.K.P.Senthilmani 8.K.Thirupati 9.N.Murugesan 10.P.Radhakrishnan
1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai
The Honourable Mr. Justice V. Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
