Dismissed

Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Veerashanmuga Moni

Madras HC18 Mar 2022CONT P/83/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed contempt petitions for willful disobedience of orders restraining demolition of temples. The respondent submitted a status report of complying committee. Court closed contempt petitions directed respondent to comply with final order. Quality: ok

What did the court decide?

Contempt petitions stand closed, directing the respondent to comply with the order dated 07.06.2021 in letter and spirit.

Rangarajan Narasimhan Vs Veerashanmuga Moni — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Cont.P.Nos.83, 159, 826 and 1445 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.03.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

Cont.P.Nos.83, 159, 826 and 1445 of 2016

¶7

Rangarajan Narasimhan, Plot No.3, 1^st Floor, Alarmel Avenue, 'Bhattar Thoppu', Srirangam, Trichy 620 006 .. Petitioner in all Cont. Petitions

¶8

Versus

¶9

Veerashanmuga Moni Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 039 .. Respondent in all Cont. Petitions

¶10

Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempts of Court

¶11

Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for having wilfully disobeying the orders

¶12

passed by this Court on 30.11.2015 in W.P.Nos.574 and 37619 of 2015.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Rangarajan Narasimhan, Party-in-Person For Respondent : Mr. NRR.Arun Natarajan Spl.Govt. Pleader (HR&CE)

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

Cont.P.Nos.83, 159, 826 and 1445 of 2016

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)

¶19

By two separate orders dated 30.11.2015 in WP.Nos.574 of 2015 and 37619 of 2015, relating to the issues touching upon the conservation, maintenance and renovation of the historical monuments and archaeological temples, this court, after considering the reports of the learned Amicus Curiae

¶20

and upon hearing all the parties, has observed that “the HR&CE department must go slow in the matter of renovations for the time being till a proper path is laid ahead, since in the hurry to carry out the work of this nature, heritage ought not to be destroyed, but the same does not mean, essential works are not to be carried out and they would continue”. It was further observed that “the works of demolition of temples based on the report of the consultant, who had proceeded on the basis of local superstition, categorising the temples as inauspicious, though the task was to render technical assistance, be stayed till the examination of whole aspect”.

¶21

2.According to the petitioner, the respondent in total disregard to the aforesaid orders of this court, continues to carry on demolition and renovation activities that are not of essential in nature, in many temples viz., Rasa Koil, Vellode, Erode, Swamy Veeraraghava Perumal Temple, Tiruppur, Shri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam, Shri Thanumalaya Swamy Temple, Sucheendram, Kanyakumari District, Shri Pundareekaksha Perumal Temple, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

2/4

¶23

Cont.P.Nos.83, 159, 826 and 1445 of 2016

¶24

Thiruvellarai, Trichy, Sri Mariamman Temple, Samayapuram, etc. Since the act of the respondent is contumacious, the petitioner has come up with these contempt petitions restraining them from carrying on any work related to renovation / restoration / conservation of the temples.

¶25

3.Today, when the matters are taken up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the HR&CE Department draws the attention of this court to a common status report dated 10.01.2022 filed by the respondent, wherein, it is in unequivocal terms, stated that the Government has constituted a State Level Expert Committee consisting of experts in various fields to do all the activities in the historical and archaeological temples, monuments, etc. as directed by this court in the final order dated 07.06.2021 in s uo motu W.P.No.574 of 2015 and WP(MD)No.24178 of 2018. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the respondents have not wilfully disobeyed the orders of this court.

¶26

4.The aforesaid submissions made on the side of the respondent have not been stoutly refuted by the petitioner / party-in-person.

¶27

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the averments made in the status report filed by the respondent, we are of the firm view that the final order dated 07.06.2021 passed in s uo motu W.P.No.574 of 2015 and WP(MD)No.24178 of 2018 covers all the grievances expressed by

¶28

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

¶29

3/4

¶30

Cont.P.Nos.83, 159, 826 and 1445 of 2016

¶31

the various parties connected thereto. Hence, all these contempt petitions stand

¶32

closed, directing the respondent to comply with the order dated 07.06.2021

¶33

made in the writ petitions referred to above, in letter and spirit.

¶34

SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶35

rsh/dhk

¶36

//Certified to be true copy//

¶37

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶38

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. GS/13/06/2022

¶39

¶40

The Commissioner

¶41

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 039

¶42

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

¶43

4/4

Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Veerashanmuga Moni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Veerashanmuga Moni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heritage Consevation Society Vs B. Chandra Mohan

R.Sakthivel Vs B.Chandra Mohan

Venkatesh Sowrirajan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Sridharan Vs The Chief Secretary to Government

Venkatesh Sowrirajan Vs R.Raja

P R Ramanan Vs the Principal Secretary