N.Krishnasamy v. the Commissioner
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petitions filed under Article 226 challenging temple property proceedings were closed by the High Court as the issues had been settled and an appropriate petition for rent recovery was filed in the District Court.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.11455 & 11456 of 2011
N.Krishnasamy ...Petitioner in both WPs
..Vs..
- 1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai – 600 034.
- 2.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Myladuthurai.
- 3.The Executive Officer, A/M.Rajagopalaswamy Temple, Lawrence Road, Thirupadripuliyur, Cuddalore District.
4.R.Narayanan ...Respondents in both WPs
PRAYER in WP.No.11455 of 2011 : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in R.P.No.1/2008 D.2 dated 23.03.2010 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 10.07.2007 bearing M.P.No.6 of 2007 in respect of transfer of lease in favour of fourth respondent in respect of the ground floor portion bearing door no.87, Lawrence Street, Cuddalore 607 002 and quash the said proceedings as unconstitutional.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
N.Krishnasamy
- respondent
The Commissioner, HR & CE Department
- respondent
The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE
- respondent
The Executive Officer, A/M.Rajagopalaswamy Temple
- respondent
R.Narayanan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court