Dismissed

Arulmigu anjaneya swamy temple v. The Commissioner

Madras HC21 Sept 2021WP/10052/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash an auction notification for setting up temporary shops near a temple. The court held that the notification had lost relevance due to the efflux of time and dismissed the matter without addressing specific legal arguments.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner at liberty to approach competent authorities if grievance exists.

Arulmigu anjaneya swamy temple Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 21.09.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.NO.10052 OF 2015
AND
M.P.NOS.1 & 2 OF 2015

¶6

Arulmigu Anjaneya Swamy Temple
Represented by its Hereditary Trustee
D.Kumar, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Street,
Villupuram.

¶7

 ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner Villupuram Municipality Villupuram.

¶10

2.The Executive Officer,
 Arulmighu Anjaneya Swamy Temple,
 Villupuram. ...Respondents
 [As per order dated 7.4.2015 in W.P.No.10052/2015]

¶11

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records of the respondent in respect of the
auction notification dated 23.03.2015 issued by the respondent
in the Vernacular Daily on 25.03.2015 and quash the same and
thereby forbear the respondent from interfering with the right
of the petitioner for setting up temporary thatched shops and
open ground shops in Thiru.Vi.ka road and in the streets in
around the Temple at Villupuram during the 'Laksha Deepam Annual
Temple Festival'.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.P.Srinivas (for R1)
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
 Government Advocate (for R2)

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The auction notification dated 23.03.2015 issued by the
first respondent in a Vernacular Daily on 25.03.2015 is sought
to be quashed. On account of efflux of time, the auction
notification of the year 2015 lost its relevance. The current
status of the issue also has not been placed before this Court
and under these circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to
approach the competent authorities if any grievance exists as of
now.

¶16

2. With this observation, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)

¶19

// True Copy //

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

Sgl

¶22

To

¶23

1.The Commissioner
 Villupuram Municipality
 Villupuram.

¶24

2.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Villupuram.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate SR.No.48792

¶26

+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.No.49005

¶27

W.P.No.10052 of 2015

¶28

SS(CO)
RVM(12/10/2021)

¶29

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

Arulmigu anjaneya swamy temple v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmigu anjaneya swamy temple v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tmt. R.Parameshwari, Vs The Director

B.Vasudevan Vs Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar

S.Antony Micheal, Vs The Sub-Registrar

A.Mohammed Vs The Secretary

Mr.a.v.Subramaniam, Vs The Special Tahsildhar

N.Jagathesvaran, Vs The Sub-Inspector of Police