Disposed

G.Jayakumar v. The Union Terriotory of Puducherry Rep. by the

Madras HC9 Jun 2021WP/12511/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition for a direction to the Deputy Collector cum Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation regarding a temple lease dispute and conduct an enquiry into the transactions expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2019 is to be looked into, an enquiry conducted into transactions, and temple affairs investigated and actions initiated expeditiously.

G.Jayakumar Vs The Union Terriotory of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.12511 of 2021

¶6

G.Jayakumar .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Union Territory of Puducherry Rep By the 1.The Deputy Collector cum Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions, Puducherry. 2.The Deputy Collector (Revenue) North, Office of the Deputy Collector, Puducherry. 3.The Trustees, Sri Arulmigu Karumuthu Mariamman Devasthanam, Karuvadikuppam, Lawspet Post, Puducherry – 605 008. .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner representation dated 06.03.2019 and pass appropriate orders on the same within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kripakaran

¶11

For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.J.Kumaran Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The writ on hand is filed to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the representation sent by the writ petitioner on 06.03.2019. The relief sought for is against the 1^st respondent/Deputy Collector cum Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions, Puducherry.

¶14

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

¶15

petitioner states that the Trustees of Sri Arulmigu Karumuthu Mariamman Devasthanam, Karuvadikuppam, Lawspet Post, Puducherry, decided to renovate the Temple premises and in this regard the petitioner approached the Trustees and expressed his willingness to take the property on him. Accordingly, a lease agreement was entered into between the 3^rd respondent/Trustees and the petitioner on 18.04.2016, wherein the Trustee signed the said lease agreement. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) and he was not permitted to proceed with the construction work and till today there is no development in the vacant land and therefore, the 3^rd respondent/Trustees are bound to refund the deposited amount. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 1^st respondent on 06.03.2019. The said representation is also not responded. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present Writ Petition.

¶16

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry), appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2, disputed the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, by stating that the lease agreement was not approved by the 1^st respondent competent authority nor the 1^st respondent has knowledge about the money transaction between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent/Trustees. In the absence of approval by the competent authority under the Provisions of the Act, the dispute remains between the Trustees and the petitioner, which is to be resorted in the manner known to law. Thus, the 1^st respondent is not a party to the transaction nor any approval was granted regarding the lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent/Trustees.

¶17

4.This Court is of the considered opinion, though the lease agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent/Trustees are functioning under the control of the 1^st respondent. Under the provisions of the Act, if at all any irregularity, illegality or fraudulent transactions are made, the 1^st respondent has to initiate appropriate action against the Temple Authorities by following the procedures contemplated under the Statute. The 1^st respondent cannot completely disown the activities of the 3^rd respondent, as the Temple, being an Institution, the 1^st respondent has to initiate appropriate actions.

¶18

5.Regarding the money transaction between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent/Trustees, if at all the dispute prevails, it is to be adjudicated before the appropriate Forum. As far as the irregularities and illegalities in the matter of dealing with the Temple properties, the 1^st respondent has instituted appropriate actions against all concerned and proceed with the matter by following the procedures contemplated. In this regard,

¶19

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

¶20

the representation sent by the petitioner dated 06.03.2019 is to be looked into and a proper enquiry is to be conducted with reference to the transactions between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent/Trustees and further conduct enquiry into the Temple affairs and initiate all further actions in the manner known to law. Such an exercise is directed to be done as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
krk/svn
To
1.The Deputy Collector cum Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Institutions,
Puducherry.
2.The Deputy Collector (Revenue) North,
Office of the Deputy Collector,
Puducherry.
W.P.No.12511 of 2021
CP(CO)
GN(13/07/2021)

¶23

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

G.Jayakumar v. The Union Terriotory of Puducherry Rep. by the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Jayakumar v. The Union Terriotory of Puducherry Rep. by the

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

E.V.P. Estates and Properties Vs the Commissioner of Income

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs the Income Tax Settlement

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs the Income Tax Settlement

Deepa Vs The District Collector

Pratap K.Moturi Vs The Tahsildar

S.Ramachandran Vs The State of Tamilnadu