Disposed

T.K.Ramachandran v. The Joint Commissioner/

Madras HC4 Feb 2019WP/937/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a direction for the temple authority to receive ritual articles submitted by the petitioner and issue receipts. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation, issue notice, and conduct a personal hearing within four weeks without deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.10.2015, issue notice, and afford an opportunity of personal hearing within four weeks.

T.K.Ramachandran Vs The Joint Commissioner/ — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 04.02.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

W.P.No.937 of 2016

T.K.Ramachandran

.. Petitioner

Vs.
.. Respondent

The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Subramaniyasamy Temple, Marudhamalai,

¶10

Coimbatore - 641 046.

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to receive the Neivedhyam and Abhisegam articles everyday given by the petitioner for the performance of Neivedhyam and Abhisegam at the Arulmighu Subramaniyasamy Thirukoil, Marudhamalai and issue proper receipts immediately to the petitioner as called upon by the representation dated 12.10.2015.

¶12

For Petitioner : K.Jayaraman For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja Special Government Advocate (HR & CE)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to receive the Neivedhyam and Abhisegam articles everyday given by him for the performance of Neivedhyam and Abhisegam at the Arulmighu Subramaniyasamy Thirukoil, Marudhamalai and to issue proper receipts immediately to him, based on his representation dated 12.10.2015.

¶15

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 12.10.2015 to

¶16

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

¶17

the respondent seeking to receive the Neivedhyam and Abhisegam articles everyday given by him for the performance of Neivedhyam and Abhisegam at the Arulmighu Subramaniyasamy Thirukoil, Marudhamalai and to issue proper receipts to him, but, the same is yet to be disposed of by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶18

Heard Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader (H.R. & C.E) on behalf of the respondent.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the representation, directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.10.2015 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner and the persons interested in this regard and also affording them an opportunity of personal hearing within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

With the above directions, this writ petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
6. Post this matter on 04.03.2019 for "Reporting
Compliance".
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
srn/av
To
The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Subramaniyasamy Temple,
Marudhamalai,
Coimbatore - 641 046.
+1cc to M/s.G.Sumithra, Advocate sr.no.9234
+1cc to Government Pleader sr.no.10364

¶21

W.P.No.937 of 2016 nr 08/02/2019

¶22

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

T.K.Ramachandran v. The Joint Commissioner/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Ramachandran v. The Joint 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

Fathima Vs The District Collector

B.Dakshinamurthy Vs The District Collector

L.Revathi Vs The District Revenue Officer

M.Venkatachalam Vs The Sub Collector/Rdo

C.Vellaiyan, Vs The District Registrar

P.Isaac Vivian Vs The Secretary to the Govt