Petitioner sought enforcement of an order stopping unauthorized temple construction. Petitioner was absent without representation, leading the court to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution without analysis of substantive merits.
None. The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
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: 09.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Writ Petition No.3865 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010
Ammasi Pandaram … Petitioner
Vs
1. The Joint Commissioner,
Office of the Hindu Religious Endowment,
Salem, Salem District.
2. Periyannan (alias) poori
3. P.Palanisamy
4. K.Palanisamy
5. Gunasekaran
6. Munusamy
7. Iyandurai … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent from strictly implement the order passed in Na.Ka.No.9387 of 2009 A4 dated 21.10.2009 by forbearing the respondents 2 to 7 from raising unauthorised construction in the lands belongs to Arulmighu Malligeswarar Temple, under the care and custody of the petitioner herein being the Hereditary Trustee of the temple.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
This matter was listed on 08.04.2021, when the petitioner was called absent. Hence it was directed to be listed today under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation by or on behalf of the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ammasi Pandaram
The Joint Commissioner, Office of the Hindu Religious Endowment, Salem
Periyannan (alias) poori
P.Palanisamy
K.Palanisamy
Gunasekaran
Anita Sumanth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
