Disposed

G.Balasubramanian v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Apr 2021WP/9371/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A limited prayer petition was filed under Article 226 regarding a request to run a business at a temple premises. The court disposed of the petition by directing the Executive Officer to hear the petitioner and dispose of the representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Executive Officer to hear the petitioner and dispose of the representation dated 30.08.2019 within six weeks.

G.Balasubramanian Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

Writ Petition No.9371 of 2021

¶6

G.Balasubramanian

¶7

.... Petitioner

¶8

Vs
1. The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Chengalpet District.

¶9

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

¶10

The Executive Officer,
Shri Dhenupureeshwarar Devasthanam,
Madambakkam, Chengalpet District.

¶11

.... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent herein to consider the representation dated 30.08.2019 and allow the petitioner to pay the application rent to run the business at Shri Dhenupureeshwarar Devasthanam Temple in Survey No.706/1A 1B.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Ramu For Respondent : Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh Government Advocate – R1 Mr.R.Venkatesh Government Advocate– R2&R3

¶14

O R D E R Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the District Collector/R1 and Mr.R.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the Commissioner, HR & CE/R2 and the Executive Officer, Shri Dhenupureeshwarar Devasthanam/R3 (Temple) and both learned counsel are armed with instructions to proceed with the matter finally even at the stage of admission. Hence, by consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed finally at this stage.

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioner seeks a limited prayer of disposal of his representation dated 30.08.2019 wherein he has requested the temple authorities to receive rent from him and permit him to continue residing at S.No.706/1A 1B in the vicinity of the temple. According to him, he has been living there for more than 30 years and is carrying on a small business. He has built a house and has obtained electricity connection as well.

¶17

Mr.Venkatesh would deny the above factual aspects stating that possession of the property in question has been taken as early as on 05.09.2019. In any event, since admittedly the representation has been received by the temple and is pending disposal, he assures the Court that the petitioner will be heard and orders passed on the representation within a period of six (6) weeks from today.

¶18

This is recorded and a direction is issued to the Executive Officer/R3 to hear the petitioner and dispose the representation dated 30.08.2019 within a period of six (6) weeks from today.

¶19

This Writ Petition stands disposed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sl To 1. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Chengalpet District. 2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 3. The Executive Officer, Shri Dhenupureeshwarar Devasthanam, Madambakkam, Chengalpet District. +cc to Mr.L.Ramu, Advocate SR.No.23001 +cc to Govt Pleader SR.No.23393,23777

¶20

Writ Petition No.9371 of 2021 GPL(CO) baf 03/05/2021

¶21

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

G.Balasubramanian v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Balasubramanian v. The District Collector

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

S.R.S Travels Vs The State Tax officer

M/s.Game Shopee Vs The Commercial Tax officer

A.A.510 Kurumandur Primary Agricultural Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

S.Murugesan Vs The District Collector

Uber India systems Private Limited, Vs Union of India

Tvl.Arul Medicals Vs The Deputy State Tax officer