Dismissed

L.Ganesan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC1 Apr 2022WP/7832/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent, Joint Commissioner, to dispose of a pending Original Application filed by the petitioner under Section 63(B) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, without examining the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the pending Original Application No.1/2021 in accordance with law.

L.Ganesan Vs The Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.04.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.7832 of 2022

¶6

L.Ganesan, S/o. Late Loganathan Mudaliar

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Nungambakkam, High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶10

Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, Kancheepuram-631 501.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Kancheepuram – 631 501.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent herein to dispose the O.A.No.1/2021 filed by me pending on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein in accordance with law and on merits within a time frame as this Hon'ble High Court may fix.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabhu For Respondents : Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvi Special Govt. Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose the O.A.No.1/2021 filed

¶17

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

¶18

by the petitioner, pending on the file of 2^nd respondent herein in accordance with law within a time frame.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that, he has filed an

¶20

Original Application under Sec. 63(B) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 before the 2^nd respondent. Even though the enquiry has been posted for several occasions, the Original Application is yet to be disposed of. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶21

Heard and considered rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the records carefully.

¶22

Considering the limited prayer sought in the Writ Petition, without going into the merits of the case, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider Original Application and pass suitable orders. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

rpp

¶26

To 1. The Commissioner,

¶27

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,

¶28

Nungambakkam, High Road,

¶29

Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶30

The Joint Commissioner,

¶31

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, Kancheepuram-631 501.

¶32

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Kancheepuram – 631 501.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.S.Prabhu, Advocate, S.R.No.22085

¶34

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.23256

W.P.No.7832 of 2022

PA[co]

NSK 13/04/2022

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

L.Ganesan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Ganesan v. The Commissioner

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

Dr.P.K. Palanisamy, Vs The Principal Secretary To

C.P.Senthilkumar, Vs The Principal Secretary to

V.Kannan, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Muniyappa Vs C.Senthil Kumar

Cholayil Private Limited Vs The Chairman/ Managing

Smt.C.Savariammal,(Died) Vs The Director General of