Disposed

T. Sevuga Pandian v. the Commissioner

Madras HC4 Feb 2020WP(MD)/732/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 for the respondents to consider his representation dated 13.12.2019 regarding his claim to the hereditary trusteeship of a temple, directing them to act within four weeks without adjudicating the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.12.2019 on merits and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

T. Sevuga Pandian Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.732 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.02.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.732 of 2020

¶7

T.Sevuga Pandian ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶10

The Joint Commissioner, Office of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Sivagangai.

¶11

The Executive Officer,

¶12

Sri Nachadaithavirtharulia Swami, Devadanam,Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

D.Ragavendra Prakash ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.12.2019 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja

¶16

For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader For R-3 : Mr.P.Mahendran

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner has come to this Court seeking for a Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider his representation, dated 13.12.2019.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that, the temple of Sri Nachadaithavirtharulia Swami of Devadanam, Rajapalayam Taluk, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.732 of 2020

¶21

Virudhunagar District and other minor temples, shrines... etc., are attached there to under the hereditary trustees of the Zamindar of Seithur. The Temple is governed by a Scheme framed by the Board of Commissioners, Madras under the Act of 1927. As per the Scheme, V.T.S.Sevugapandia Thevar, the then Zamindar of Seithur was appointed as the hereditary trustee. He expired on 05.11.1969. Now, the petitioner, who is the son of V.T.S.Thangapandian, who is none other than the third son of V.T.S.Sevugapandia Thevar, as per the line of succession has given a representation to the respondents, dated 13.12.2019 to appoint him as the hereditary trustee of the subject Temple.

¶22

However, the respondents have not come forward to take action upon the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 13.12.2019. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation, dated 13.12.2019.

¶23

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.12.2019 on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶25

Sd/ Assistant Registrar

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

sts To:

¶29

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶30

The Joint Commissioner,

¶31

Office of Hindu Religious and

¶32

Charitable Endowment Department,

¶33

Sivagangai. +1 cc Mr.D.SADIQ RAJA ,Advocate, SR.No.4704

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.732 of 2020 04.02.2020

¶35

KK/SAR/20.02.2020/2P-4C

¶36

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

T. Sevuga Pandian v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Sevuga Pandian 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

The Principal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Tvl. Pcs Polyfils P Ltd., Vs the Asst. Commissioner (St)(Fac)

M/s.Sri Aravindar Engineering College Vs The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner

M/S.Paramount Mills Private Vs the Superintendent of Cgst &

D. Jacap Vs the Inspector or General

Balakumar Msl Vs The Regional Pf Commissioner-I