Dismissed

M.Mani v. The Commissioner

Madras HC4 Jun 2019WP/15273/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras dismissed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to initiate criminal action for alleged illegal temple demolition and theft. The court held the petition was dismissed because an alternate remedy was available as the Commissioner had already directed the Joint Commissioner to take action via a

What did the court decide?

The writ of mandamus was dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

M.Mani Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 4/6/2019

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶7

W.P.No.15273 of 2019 and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.15266 and 15270 of 2019

¶9

M. Mani ..Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department
Nungambakkam
Chennai 34.
2.The Additional Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department
Nungambakkam
Chennai 34.

¶10

3.The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Villupuram Region Villupuram. 4.The Assistant Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department No.122/107, Thiruvoodal Street Tiruvannamalai 606 601. 5.N. Murugan ..Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take criminal action against fifth respondent and other officer who are all conspirated with him for illegal demolish of old Arulmigu Dharamaraja temple and

¶12

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

¶13

stolen the valuable stones and gold plate and other valuables from Thirupani kuzhu and make temple building drawing in accordance with Aagama vithi and call for the tender and construct the temple building in accordance with Aagama vithi by considering the representation dated 13/10/2018 and reminder dated 24/4/2019.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.V.Neethidurai

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

(Order of this Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)

¶17

Petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4, to take criminal action against Mr.N.Murugan, fifth respondent and other officers, who according to him have conspired with him, for the demolition of old Arulmigu Dharamaraja temple and stolen valuable stones, gold plate, and other valuables, from Thirupani kuzhu and make the temple building drawing, in accordance with Aagama vithi, and call for a tender, and construct the temple building, in accordance with Aagama vithi, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 13/10/2018 and reminder, dated 24/4/2019.

¶18

Facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is as follows:-

¶19

Petitioner is a resident of Nadutheru Kattukanallur Gramam & Post, Arani Vattam, Tiruvannamalai District. In Kattukadallur Village, there is a temple called Arulmighu Dharmaraja temple, which is under the control of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. Under the guise of renovating the said temple, Mr.Murugan, fifth respondent has started collecting money from the public. Suddenly, the fifth respondent demolished the said temple, without the approval from the District Committee or from the Regional Committee or from the High Court Committee, and started constructing the temple.

¶20

3.Petitioner has further stated in the petition that demolition of the temple should be carried out only in the presence of the officers of the HR & CE Department. Since the first respondent had demolished the said temple, he might have taken away valuable stones and gold plates, laid under the peetam, at the time of initial construction and taken away valuable woods. Vide, representation, dated 16/7/2018, one Mr.Rajkumar, had sought information, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but till date, there is no proper reply from the respondents. Petitioner had also sent representations, dated 13/10/2018 and 24/4/2019, to the respondents 1 to 4, to take criminal action against the fifth respondent and other

¶21

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

¶22

officers, who have conspired with him, in the illegal demolition of the temple and theft of valuable stones, gold plates and other valuables from the temple. Since the respondents have not conducted any enquiry, with respect to illegal demolition, petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition, praying for the relief as stated supra.

¶23

On the above averments, Mr.V.Neethidurai, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions and sought for a direction as prayed for.

¶24

Material on record discloses that on the petition of the writ petitioner, dated 24/4/2019 and Mr.A.Rajkumar of the same Village, dated 16/7/2018, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai, first respondent, vide letter No.25072/2019/Q1, dated 9/5/2019, has directed the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Villupuram, third respondent, to take action, as per the departmental Rules. The former, further directed the Joint Commissioner, Villupuram, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, to submit a report and accordingly, to inform the writ petitioner. Thus, it could be seen that action on the petition has already been taken. Now, it is for the Joint Commissioner to proceed further.

¶25

In the supporting affidavit, petitioner has alleged that the fifth respondent has illegally demolished the old Arulmighu Dharmaraja temple and stolen valuable stones and gold plates from the temple. Allegations of theft of stones, gold plate and other valuables have to be proved by adducing evidence.

¶26

During the course of hearing, when attention of the learned counsel was invited to the procedure to be followed, in the matter of investigation, by lodging a proper complaint with the Police and in the event of any action to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction, under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr.V.Neethidurai, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that already a complaint has been lodged and no action has been taken.

¶27

If that be the case, petitioner has to approach only the competent forum. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and a writ of mandamus can be issued, only if there is no adequate and alternate remedy is available. In the case on hand, remedy is available to the petitioner which he has not pursued. Vide proceeding, dated 9/5/2019, Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai, first respondent has already been directed to take appropriate action, as per the departmental Rules. Hence, no further direction need be issued.

¶28

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

¶29

In view of the above, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶30

mvs

¶31

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Nungambakkam Chennai 34. 2.The Additional Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Nungambakkam Chennai 34. 3.The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Villupuram Region Villupuram. 4.The Assistant Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department No.122/107, Thiruvoodal Street Tiruvannamalai 606 601. W.P.No.15273 of 2019 Kak(11/07/2019)

¶34

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

M.Mani v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mani v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Palanisamy Vs The District Collector

Maureen Gonsalves Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.Balasubramani Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

J.Sankar Vs The Chairman of Tasmac Limited

N.Babu Ganesh Vs The Secretary to the Government

S.Murali Mohan Vs The Election Commission of India