Allowed

V.Veeramani, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC2 Sept 2020WP(MD)/6602/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged an order denying their right to perform poojas in temples, passed by the Executive Officer without hearing them. The court set aside the order and directed the Joint Commissioner to dispose of the matter on merits within eight weeks while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Joint Commissioner directed to dispose of matter on merits within eight weeks maintaining status quo.

V.Veeramani, Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)No.6602 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.09.2020

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.6602 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.5192 & 5193 of 2017

1.V.Veeramani

2.V.Veera Rajendran

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶9

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶10

3.The Executive Officer, A/M. Veerabadraswamy Temple, Samayanallur, Having office at A/M.Madhana Gopal Swamy Thirukoil, West Masi Street, Madurai-625 001.

¶11

4.The Fit Person/Executive Officer, A/M.Dhandayuthapani Temple, Madurai Town.

¶12

5.S.S.Veeramani ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the third respondent dated 27.03.2017 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thiagarajan For R1& R2 : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.S.Manohar For R5 : Mr.S.Madhavan

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

2 W.P.(MD)No.6602 of 2017

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶20

2.The subject matter pertains to right to perform poojas in Arulmighu Vinayagar and Veerabadrasamy Temple at Samayanallur, Madurai North.

¶21

3.The petitioners question the impugned order dated 27.03.2020 passed by the Executive Officer of the Temple. On the very face of it, it is seen that even without hearing the petitioners herein, the impugned order has been straight away passed. Therefore, on the sole ground, it is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside.

¶22

4.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent states that he will file a fresh application within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Madurai, setting out his claims. The present petitioners will be shown as respondents by the fifth respondent herein in the proposed petition.

¶23

5.The second respondent will dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Even though I have set aside the impugned order, in order to ensure that there is no confusion, status quo that obtains as on date will continue till the second respondent pass final orders. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. The second respondent will hear all the stakeholders including the Executive Officer before passing final orders.

¶24

6.The Writ Petition is allowed on these terms with the aforesaid direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

Rmi

¶28

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

2/4

¶30

3 W.P.(MD)No.6602 of 2017

¶31

the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶32

To:

¶33

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶34

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶35

+1 CC to Mr.S. MANOHAR, Advocate ( SR-15731[F] dated 03/09/2020 ) +1 CC to Mr.P. THIYAGARAJAN, Advocate ( SR-16017[F]dated 04/09/2020 )

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.6602 of 2017 02.09.2020

¶37

VB (11.09.2020) 3P 5C

¶38

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

¶39

3/4

V.Veeramani, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Veeramani, 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

N.Jegan Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

K. Balamurugan Vs the District Environment Engineer

Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. Vs the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board(Twad)

Sivagangai Municipality Vs Joint Commissioner

S.Muneeswaran Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Agrini Enclave Houses and Vs the Commissioner