Disposed

C.Murugan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC6 Dec 2019WP/13230/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the Joint Commissioner to scrutinize a representation regarding grievances against temple Poojaris. The court directed the respondent to counsel the Poojaris to ensure peaceful practices and resolve grievances while completing the exercise by 29.02.2020.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to counsel the Poojaris in the specified temples to ensure peaceful conduct and resolve grievances, with the exercise to be completed by 29.02.2020.

C.Murugan Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.12.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.13230 of 2019

¶6

C.Murugan

¶7

...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department
Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034
2.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department
Salem
3.The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department
Namakkal
...Respondents

¶8

Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.04.2019 and to take action thereon within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Baskar For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja, Spl.G.P. for R1-3

¶10

The petitioner has given a representation dated 16.04.2019, raising the grievance against the Poojaris who are doing regular pooja in Arulmighu Mariamman, Kariakaliamman and Vinayakar Temples at Namakkal.

¶11

1/2

¶12

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

¶13

2.The grievance of the petitioner can be addressed by the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent shall call all the Poojaris and counsel them on their responsibility of the work which they discharge and their responsibility to the devotees who come to the temple. They must realise that every prayer must end with peace and not with hatred, which is against the very practice that had been followed. It is hoped that the counselling offered by the 2^nd respondent would be much of help to the Poojaris of the temples and that the petitioner or anybody as a whole in the Village would not have any grievance as against their actions in the future.

¶14

3.The 2^nd respondent may issue notice to all the concerned and examine the issue and pass necessary orders. Written order is not strictly required and strict oral advice to everybody concerned to perform their duties would suffice. At any rate, the entire exercise to be completed by 29.02.2020.

¶15

4.This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To. 1.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034

¶16

2.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Salem

¶17

3.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Namakkal +1 cc to the Special Government Pleader(HR & CE) sr102978 W.P.No.13230 of 2019 aa27/12/2019

¶18

2/2

¶19

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

C.Murugan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Murugan v. The Commissioner

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

V.Pasavaraj Vs The Commissioner

P.Vanagamudi Arasan Vs The Commissioner of Police

P.Rajendran Vs S.Santhi

A.Radhakrishnan, Vs The Commissioner

Selapalam Varshini Vs The Regional Passport Officer

M.R.Sheik Abdul Rahim Vs The Regional Passport Officer