Disposed

A.Radhakrishnan, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC6 Dec 2019WP/2009/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought safeguards for temple property. The court appreciated the petitioner's efforts, granted time to the Joint Commissioner for enquiry u/s 78 of the H.R. & C.E. Act, and fixed a deadline for passing orders.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Joint Commissioner directed to pass final orders by 29.02.2020 after examining records of enquiry u/s 78.

A.Radhakrishnan, Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.12.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.No.2009 of 2018

¶2

A.Radhakrishnan ...Petitioner

¶3

Vs.

¶4

1.The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department 119, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034 2.The Principal Chief Income Tax Commissioner Tamil Nadu Region Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034 3.The District Collector Salem 636 001 4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Salem Range Salem 5.The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate cum Sub-Collector Mettur, Salem District 6.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Salem District Pin Code 636 001 7.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Salem District Pin Code 636 001 8.Fit Person Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukoil Chickampatty, Omalur Taluk Salem District

¶5

...Respondents

¶6

1/3

¶7

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

¶8

Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to take appropriate action to safeguard the 8^th respondent temple property situated in S.No.55 at Chickampatty Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, to an extent of 22.33.00 hectares, further to recover the amount from the person who cause loss to the 8^th respondent temple and restore the same with 8^th respondent temple by considering the petitioner's representation dated 08.12.2017.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaj, Spl.G.P. (HR & CE) for R1, 6 to 8 Mr.N.Inbanathan, AGP for R3, 4 & 5

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The efforts taken by the writ petitioner / A.Radhakrishnan, S/o.Arumugam, residing at No.36, Sriram Nagar, Chennai 600 113, has to be deeply appreciated by this Court since he has taken the responsibility of filing this writ petition in the nature of Mandamus with the sole intention of protecting and safeguarding the properties of the 8^th respondent temple viz. Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukoil, Chickampatty, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. Pending the Writ Petition, the respondents have been forced to act as against the encroachers.

¶12

2.It is today represented by Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader, H.R. & C.E., that they have identified 16 encroachers and have also conducted enquiry.

¶13

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that even on the earlier occasion, the same status was reported, but, as on date, they have not identified the encroachers and they have not completed the enquiry.

¶14

4.However, it is appropriate that this court grants some time for perusing of the records and for passing considered order by the Joint Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., Salem, who is the 6^th respondent herein and the competent authority to pass necessary orders. These orders are pursuant to the enquiry conducted u/s.78 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. It is also stated that a new officer had taken charge. These aspects are taken for consideration of this Court in broad prospective and sufficient time and opportunity is also granted to the officer to examine the records in detail and pass well considered order.

¶15

2/3

¶16

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

¶17

5.In view of the above facts, this petition stands disposed of with the observation that the 6^th respondent, the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Salem District, may, bestow personal attention and take efforts to dispose of the pending enquiries before him in respect of the properties of the 8^th respondent / Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukoil, Chickampatty, Omalur Taluk, Salem District and pass final orders on or before 29.02.2020. This court would further appreciate the efforts of the officer if he actually dispose of the enquiry on or before 30.01.2020. At any rate, knowing the sensitivity of the matter, as outer limit of 29.02.2020 is fixed. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

To.

¶23

1.The Commissioner

¶24

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department 119, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034

¶25

2.The Principal Chief Income Tax Commissioner Tamil Nadu Region, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034

¶26

3.The District Collector, Salem 636 001

¶27

4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range,Salem

¶28

5.The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate cum Sub-Collector, Mettur, Salem District

¶29

6.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, Salem District, Pin Code 636 001

¶30

7.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Salem District, Pin Code 636 001

¶31

8.Fit Person, Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukoil Chickampatty, Omalur Taluk, Salem District

¶32

+1 cc to M/s.R.Marudhachalamurthy,Advocate Sr.No. 102358 +1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.Nos. 102985 & 102530 AKM/10.01.2020/3P-11 C /

¶33

W.P.No.2009 of 2018

¶34

3/3

¶35

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

A.Radhakrishnan, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Radhakrishnan, 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

Selapalam Varshini Vs The Regional Passport Officer

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

C.Murugan Vs The Commissioner