Disposed

M.S.Krishnan, Hereditary v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC15 Oct 2019WP/11024/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench of Justice V. Bharathidasan disposed of two connected writ petitions. One petition was dismissed as abated due to the death of the petitioner. The other was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to submit an explanation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition No.11024 of 2011 dismissed as abated; Writ petition No.11025 of 2011 disposed of with directions to submit explanation.

M.S.Krishnan, Hereditary Vs the Joint Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :15.10.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.11024 & 11025 of 2011 and MP.Nos.2 and 2 2011

¶6

M.S.Krishnan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.11024 of 2011 Duraisamy ... Petitioner in W.P.No.11025 of 2011 vs. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, Administration Department, Salem – 1. ... Respondent in both W.Ps. COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned charge memos made in Se.Mu.Nada.Na.Ka.No.4158/2009/A2 dated 08.03.2011 and Se.Mu.Nada.Na.Ka.No.4662/2009/A2 dated 08.03.2011 issued by the respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Jothimanian For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja,

¶7

Special Government Pleader [HR & CE]

¶8

ORDER

¶9

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the charge memo issued to the petitioners regarding the alleged misconduct in taking the temple fund.

¶10

Mr.Jothimanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that pending writ petition, the petitioner in W.P.No.11024 of 2011 died. So far as the petitioner in W.P.No.11025 of 2011 is concerned, the petitioner is ready to submit his explanation.

¶11

Considering the above circumstances, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.11025 of 2011 is directed to submit his explanation within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the respondent is directed to pass suitable orders after giving an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opportunity to the petitioner in W.P.No.11025 of 2011 within a

¶12

period of four (4) weeks from the date of the petitioner's explanation. Till then, the respondent directed not to disturb the petitioner in W.P.No.11025 of 2011.

¶13

With the above observations, the writ petition No.11024 of 2011 is dismissed as abated and the Writ petition No.11025 of 2011 is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶14

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mp
To
The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment,
Administration Department,
Salem – 1.
+2cc to M/s.Jothimanian, Advocate, S.R.No. 86675, 86674
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 86591
W.P.Nos.11024 & 11025 of 2011
and MP.Nos.2 and 2 2011
LN(CO)
GN(20/11/2019)

¶15

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

M.S.Krishnan, Hereditary v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Krishnan, Hereditary v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allikulam Pazhaiyaporul Vs the State of T.N., by

Chettinad Builders Private Ltd. Vs State of Tamilnadu

Abdoul Cassime Vs The Competent Authority

Rajasekar Vs the Revenue Tahisldar Cum

P.Jeevankumar, Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its

Mrs.Bama Gajapathy, Vs State of Tamilnadu