Allowed

Kaliyappan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Apr 2018WP(MD)/8419/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 sought mandamus for permission to conduct a temple festival. The court directed the fourth respondent to consider the pending application on merits within one week after giving due opportunity to interested parties.

What did the court decide?

-direction to fourth respondent to consider petitioner's representation on merits within one week after giving opportunity to interested parties.

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

¶1

¶2

Kaliyappan

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.04.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD) No.8419 of 2018

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶6

3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶7

4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, Vasudevanallur – 627 758 Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give permission for conducting Amman Thiruveethi Ula during the Chithirai festival of 11 days Mandagapadi commencing from 22.04.2018 to 02.05.2018 in the Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukovil, Vasudevanallur, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

The petitioner's application dated 01.02.2018, seeking for grant of permission for conducting Amman Thiruveethi Ula during the Chithirai festival of 11 days Mandagapadi, has been kept pending without disposal, which prompted the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

¶10

Though the petitioner has sought for permission for conducting the Mandagapadi commencing from 22.04.2018 to 02.05.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is willing to conduct the Mandagapadi from 06.05.2018 to 16.05.2018.

¶11

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

¶12

By consent of both counsels, this writ petition is taken up

¶13

¶14

for final disposal.

¶15

It is needless to point out that whenever any representation / application is made to the statutory authorities, the respondents are bound to dispose of the same in one way or other, rather than keeping it pending indefinitely.

¶16

In view of the limited prayer sought for and without going into the merits of the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2018, there shall be a direction to the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Such an exercise shall be done after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as the representatives of the Devendra Community people and to any other person who may be interested in the subject matter.

¶17

With the above observation, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶18

Sd/ Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶19

/True copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

To:

¶22

1.The District Collector,

¶23

Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶24

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶25

Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶26

3.The Superintendent of Police,

¶27

Tirunelveli District,

¶28

Tirunelveli.

¶29

+2cc to Mr.T.M.Madasamy, Advocate, SR.No.63456

¶30

+1cc to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate, SR.No. 63699

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.8419 of 2018

¶32

25.04.2018

¶33

PNN

¶34

KK/SV MMS/26.04.2018/SAR-1/2P-7C

¶35

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

Kaliyappan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaliyappan, 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

Bruhanudeen Vs the Passport Officer

C.Kanagavel Vs the District Revenue Officer

N.Elangovan, Vs the District Collector

V.K.Akbar Ali, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

V.Srinivasan, S/O.Virumandi, Vs the Regional Passport

N. Ramasamy, Vs the Tahsildar