Dismissed

Chellamani Iyengar, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC8 Oct 2020WP(MD)/1933/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to appoint him as Hereditary Trustee of a temple, citing a representation filed post his death. Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn due to non-impleadment of the Joint Commissioner, noting that only said authority can recognize a hereditary trustee. Liberty granted to heirs to file fresh petition with necessary parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file a separate writ petition after impleading the Joint Commissioner and legal heirs.

Chellamani Iyengar, Vs the Assistant… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.1933 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.10.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.(MD)No.1933 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.5389 of 2019

Chellamani Iyengar

: Petitioner

Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. : Respondent

¶7

RAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Hereditary Trustee of “Sri Malai Mandala Srinivasa Perumal Thirukovil”, situated at Thiruppasethi, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District by considering the petitioner representation, dated 13.07.2018.

¶8

For Petitioner :Mr.K.Pandy For Respondent :Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar Special Government Pleader

¶9

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus, seeking for a direction to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Hereditary Trustee of “Sri Malai Mandala Srinivasa Perumal Thirukovil”, situated at Thiruppasethi, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 13.07.2018.

¶12

2.Heard Mr.K.Pandy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶13

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is dead and he seeks time to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner.

¶14

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that necessary party to be impleaded in this Writ Petition is the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, who is alone empowered to recognise a person as Hereditary Trustee under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Endowments Act, 1959.

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.1933 of 2019

¶16

5.Since the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, has not been made as a party respondent in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is granted by this Court to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner to prefer a separate Writ Petition for the same relief after impleading all the necessary parties as party respondents, including the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department.

¶17

6.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Assistant Registrar (P&A)

¶19

// True Copy //

¶20

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶21

cmr

¶22

¶23

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶24

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-19629[F] dated 09/10/2020 )

¶25

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.1933 of 2019 08.10.2020

¶26

VB (16.10.2020) 2P 3C

¶27

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

Chellamani Iyengar, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chellamani Iyengar, v. the Assistant 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

Ashokan, Vs the Tax Appellate Committee

Sri Alagumalai Industries, Vs the Superintending Engineer

M.Sakthivel Vs the District Revenue Officer

M.S.Muthuraman, Vs the Commissioner

Nagal Nagar Jumma Pallivasal Vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

R.S.Dhanasekaran, Vs the District Hill Areas