Disposed

Alagappan.N v. the Commissioner

Madras HC15 Nov 2021WP(MD)/19345/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of the matter as closed without expressing any view on the merits because the petitioner sought more time to produce a decree, which was deemed unnecessary after respondents demonstrated the petitioner had submitted to their jurisdiction by producing accounts and receiving expenditure permission.

What did the court decide?

disposed as closed, no order as to costs

Alagappan.N Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.[MD]No.19345 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.11.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.[MD]No.19345 of 2021

¶3

N.Alagappan ... Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶6

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai.

¶7

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Paramakudi.

¶8

4.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Karaikudi. ... Respondents

¶9

P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Notice dated 11.08.2021 issued by the fourth respondent and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Madhavan For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 08.11.2021, which reads as follows:

¶13

“When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that there is a declaration that the temple which forms subject matter of captioned writ petition has been declared as a denomination temple, vide decree dated 28.08.1979 in O.S.No.132 of 1979, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Devakottai. Though a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ copy of the judgment has been annexed as part of the

¶14

1/4

¶15

W.P.[MD]No.19345 of 2021

¶16

typed set of papers, the decree has not been placed before this Court.

¶17

2. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for writ petitioner sought time to produce the decree. Request acceded to. List under the caption 'adjourned admission' one week hence.

¶18

3. List on 15.11.2021.”

¶19

[extracted as such]

¶20

2. Adverting to the aforesaid earlier proceedings, Mr.S.Madhavan, learned Counsel for writ petitioner requests for further time to produce a copy of the decree dated 28.08.1979 made in O.S.No.132 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Devakottai.

¶21

3. However, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader, State Counsel on behalf of all the four respondents submits that the writ petitioner has submitted himself to the respondents' jurisdiction by responding to the impugned notice inter-alia by producing income and expenditure accounts. After considering the income and expenditure accounts, the third respondent has also granted permission for expenditure for the current fasli [elg ; g [ gryp] 1431 ie., 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022. A scanned reproduction of the proceedings of the third respondent as submitted before this Court is as follows:

¶22

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

¶23

2/4

¶24

W.P.[MD]No.19345 of 2021

¶25

4. The above gives quietus to the matter and it may not be necessary to go into other questions that have been raised in the captioned writ petition.

¶26

5. Recording the aforementioned stated position of the respondents, the captioned writ petition is disposed of as closed. Though obvious, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶29

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

¶31

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶32

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

¶33

3/4

¶34

W.P.[MD]No.19345 of 2021

¶35

¶36

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶37

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai.

¶38

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Paramakudi.

¶39

4.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Karaikudi.

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-34559[F] dated 16/11/2021 )

¶41

W.P.[MD]No.19345 of 2021

¶42

15.11.2021

¶43

SJ(CO) KB(13.12.2021) 4P 6C

¶44

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

¶45

4/4

Alagappan.N v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alagappan.N v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Gnanathiraviam, Vs the Secretary to Government

I.Asarab Ali, S/O Ibrambu, Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

A. Sundaram, Vs the Commissioner

Asaraf Vs the Chairman

Thaka Khan N Vs the Chief Executive Officer

M/S v.R.Muthu and Bros Vs the State Tax OFFICER-1