Disposed

S.Anandan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC24 Jan 2020WP/19528/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a direction to dispose of his representation regarding rights to perform temple poojas. The High Court dismissed the petition and disposed of the writ proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to dispose of the representation dated 15.05.2019 by verifying age, seeking further proof, and passing a reasoned order on or before 28.02.2020.

S.Anandan Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 24.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

W.P.No.19528 of 2019

S.Anandan

.. Petitioner ..Vs..

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶9

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Villupuram District.

¶10

3.The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Melmalayanur Angalamman Temple, Melmalayanur, Villupuram.

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to permit the petitioner to perform pooja rights at the Arulmighu Angalamman Temple, Melmalayanur as per the settled scheme based on the representation dated 15.05.2019.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar, for Pappaiah Dharmarajan.

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus, seeking a direction to dispose of the representation dated 15.05.2019, by which representation the petitioner sought rights to perform pooja in the Arulmighu Angalamman Temple, Melmalayanur.

¶15

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

¶16

In the affidavit filed in support of the said petitioner, the petitioner who is today aged about 21 years, having been born on 06.05.1998 has claimed that originally his father Sundaram Poojari was assigned pooja work as per the scheme which was settled. It must also be stated that the Arulmighu Angalamman Temple, is a very ancient temple and the poojas are performed by the families of fishermen, specifically 7 clans who have traditionally managed the temple. The temple is under the control of the HR & CE., Department. The petitioner claims that since trusteeship is hereditary, he is entitled to inherit the same. He comes under the 3^rd Clan.

¶17

On an earlier date, seeking a very same right, a representation was given and that was disposed of with an observation, that only those persons who have completed the age of 21 years can be given the right to perform the poojas. It must be noted that the petitioner's claim otherwise has not been either adjudicated or rejected. It is the fact that, the petitioner is a member of 3^rd clan and therefore he has an inherit right to seek to perform the poojas. Now, the petitioner having completed the age of 21 years and on completion of 21 years, on 15.05.2019 had given a fresh representation to the respondents seeking such right to perform poojas. The 3^rd respondent may therefore, dispose of the representation dated 15.05.2019, by giving notice to the petitioner, verifying his age, seeking further proof of such in any manner whatsoever and thereafter pass an order with reasons. The said order should be passed on or before 28.02.2020.

¶18

With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

To,

¶23

1.The Commissioner,

¶24

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶25

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

¶26

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶27

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Villupuram District.

¶28

3.The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Melmalayanur Angalamman Temple, Melmalayanur, Villupuram.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.C.Umashankar, Advocate sr.5795

¶30

+1cc to Pappaiah Dharmarajan, Advocate sr.5796

¶31

W.P.No.19528 of 2019

¶32

gp(co)
nr 03/02/2020

¶33

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

S.Anandan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anandan 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

B.Hariprasad, Vs The Inspector of Police

E.Muruvayee Vs The District Collector

Shokkath Ali Vs The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

S.Kumarasamy, Vs The Commissioner

V.Anandan Vs The Member Secretary

Sakuntala Manohar, Vs The Regional Passport Officer