Dismissed

P.Rathnavelu, v. the Joint Commissioner of

Madras HC27 Jan 2020WP/8503/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a communication regarding the initiation of an enquiry for removal as a hereditary temple trustee via a writ petition. The court observed that an enquiry had already been conducted and final orders passed by the relevant authorities post-filing of the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no costs awarded.

What the court decided

AI extract

P.Rathnavelu, Vs the Joint Commissioner of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

Writ Petition No.8503 of 2012

¶6

R.Rathnavelu ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs The Joint Commissioner of HR & CE, Salem. .... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records to the impugned communication of the respondent in N.K.No.7463/2008/B2, dated 15.03.2012 and quash the same consequently direct the respondent to furnish the copies of the documents to the petitioner as requested by him in his representation dated 15.02.2011 before proceeding with the enquiry on the charges against the petitioner in the memo of charges in N.K.No.7463/2008/B2, dated 04.11.2011 issued by the respondent.

¶8

For petitioner : M/s.R.Neelakandan For respondent : Mr.R.Venkatesan Government Advocate

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This writ petition has been filed challenging the communication of the respondent dated 15.03.2012 and for a consequential direction to direct the respondent to furnish a copy of the documents to the petitioner as requested by him in his representation dated 15.12.2011 before proceeding with the enquiry on the charges against the petitioner in a memo of charges in Na.K.No.7463/2008 B2, dated 04.11.2011 issued by the respondent.

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the Hereditary Trustee of Arulmighu Ayyanarappan Temple situated at Vembaneri Village in Edappady Taluk, Salem District. According

¶12

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

¶13

to him, the Commissioner, HR & CE department issued show cause notice to him seeking explanation from him as to why an Executive Officer shall not be appointed to the aforementioned Temple based on the allegations of mismanagement made against him.

¶14

According to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, an enquiry was conducted and recommendations have also been given by the Commissioner HR & CE on 18.09.2016 to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE as well as, the Chief Audit Officer for removal of the petitioner as Hereditary Trustee in the afore mentioned Temple. A copy of the aforementioned recommendations have also been given to the learned counsel for the petitioner by the learned Government Advocate.

¶15

In view of the above, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition as enquiry has already been conducted and final orders passed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi2
To
The Joint Commissioner of HR & CE,
Salem.

¶17

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader Sr.6346

¶18

Writ Petition No.8503 of 2012 rsv[co] srg 25/02/2020

¶19

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

P.Rathnavelu, v. the Joint Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

P.Rathnavelu, v. the Joint Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.J.Anwar, Vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

S.Sankari, Vs the Director General of Police

M/S.Homelinks Exhibition, Vs the Secretary to Government

Pushpa Sundaram, Vs The Commissioner

R.Ameer Basha Vs The Secretary

Meera D.Chinnadurai Vs Union of India, Rep.by the