Allowed

T.Arumugam, S/O.Thirumal, v. the District Collector

Madras HC18 Apr 2018WP(MD)/7210/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing the Tamil Nadu administration to reconsider a representation regarding the return of gods idols seized during temple demolition. The High Court, noting the petitioner's grievance, directed the respondent to consider the representation on its merits within six weeks without expressing views on the substantive merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2018 on its own merits within six weeks.

T.Arumugam, S/O.Thirumal, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.04.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.7210 of 2018

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)No.6928 of 2018

¶9

T.Arumugam ... Petitioner

¶10

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to return the “Gods Idols and Brass Pooja Materials” taken possession by the 2^nd respondent on 07.02.2018 night, during the demolition of “Sri Kalvi Varamtharum Selva Vinayagar Temple” at Sreenivasa Nagar, Panangadi Road, Sivagangai as listed out in the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2018, within time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.Makesh Kumaravel For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, Additional Government Pleader.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

2.It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2018 seeking return of the Gods Idols and Brass Pooja Materials, taken possession by the second respondent on 07.02.2018, has not been considered by the second respondent till date and therefore, has filed the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petition.

¶17

¶18

3.This Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same in one way or other. Non consideration of the same would amount to dereliction of their ordinary duties of their office and as such this Court would be justified in invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct them to consider the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time.

¶19

4.In view of the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2018 on its own merits and take further action in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

5.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.(MD)No.6928 of 2018 is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar-

¶25

¶26

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2.The Tahsildar,

Sivagangai Taluk,

Sivagangai.

+1cc to Mr.R.M.Makeshkumaravel, Advocate Sr.No.62158 +1cc to Special Government Pleader,Sr.No.62177

¶31

¶32

vb/rsk/sar3/2p/4c/18/05/2018

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.7210 of 2018 18.04.2018

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

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

T.Arumugam, S/O.Thirumal, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Arumugam, S/O.Thirumal, 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

K.Iyyadurai, Vs the Executive Engineer

Kannimariyal, Vs the District Collector

S.Muthu, Vs the District Collector

A.Xavier, Vs the District Collector

S.Alagarsamy Vs the District Collector

Jabarullah Vs the Thasildar