Dismissed

Rajamanickam v. The Commissioner

Madras HC9 Jun 2022WP(MD)/10046/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to appoint a permanent Archagar for temple festivals at Allalaperi Village, citing lack of proper administration. Court directed second respondent to inform petitioner regarding a representation status and fourth respondent to ensure peaceful festival conduct before disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to inform petitioner about representation status within four weeks; Fourth respondent to ensure peaceful festival conduct.

Rajamanickam Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.10046 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.06.2022 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR W.P.(MD).No.10046 of 2022

Rajamanickam

.. Petitioner

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable endowment Department, Chennai.

¶9

2.The Joint commissioner,

¶10

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶11

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Virudhunagar.

¶13

4.The Executive Officer,

¶14

Arulmigu Sokkanathasamy Thirukovil, Virudhunagar. .. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint a permanent Archagar as per the relevant provisions of HR and CE Act to the Arulmigu Sri Manikkavasagar @ Ayyanarswamy Thirukovil at Allalaperi Village, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District for the temple festival to be held at 10.06.2022 to 12.06.2022 by taking into account the third respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2061/2006 Aa3 dated 26.7.2006 and the petitioner's representation dated 18.04.2022.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajini For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.P.Mahendran Standing Counsel

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint a permanent Archagar as per the relevant provisions of HR and CE Act to the Arulmigu Sri Manikkavasagar @ Ayyanarswamy Thirukovil at Allalaperi Village, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District for the temple festival to be held at 10.06.2022 to 12.06.2022 by taking into account the third respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2061/2006 Aa3 dated 26.7.2006 and the petitioner's representation dated 18.04.2022.

¶19

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

¶20

1/3

¶21

W.P.(MD).No.10046 of 2022

¶22

2.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had sent a representation on 18.04.2022 stating that the temple festival of the Arumigu Sri Manikkavasagar @ Ayyanarswamy Thirukovil at Allalaperi Village, Kariyapatti, Vidurdhunagar District, to be held on 10.06.2022 and 12.06.2022. The petitioner's temple is a listed temple. No Hereditary Trustee nominated. Though the temple is under control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, no proper administration is carried on and no poojaries nominated. On the other hand, some persons of the villagers nominated poojaries and conducted poojas. The further contention of the petitioner is that no one administered the income of the temple properly, some of the villagers run the temple on their own. Hence, the petitioner had sent a representation. Since no action has been taken, the present petition has been filed.

¶23

3.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent/ Executive Officer submitted that he is the Thakkar of the temple. The temple is the listed village temple and poojari from Velalar Community conduct poojas for several decades. There is no complaint of misappropriation against them. The petitioner's complaint seems to be a motivated one. Earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.4440 of 2022, wherein, the respondents 7 and 8 are poojaries, which was disposed of, on 14.03.2022. The petitioner is very much aware about the poojaries in the temple, who perform poojas. In the earlier writ petition, the objection of the petitioner was with regard to putting up a welcome arch on the main road for the temple and this Court finding that the arch is at a far away place from the temple for which no objection can be entertained.

¶24

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the representation of the petitioner considered. Now Fit person appointed, who is looking after the administration of the temple. The petitioner's complaints seems to be bald without details of mismanagement. If any tangible materials produced, the same can be considered.

¶25

5.In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to inform the petitioner about the status of the representation dated 18.04.2015 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fourth respondent is directed to ensure that the temple festival is conducted with peace and harmony.

¶26

6.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/06/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

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

¶32

2/3

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.10046 of 2022

¶34

vsg

¶35

To:

¶36

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable endowment Department, Chennai.

¶37

2.The Joint commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶38

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Virudhunagar.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.P.MAHENDRAN, Advocate ( SR-24918[F] dated 09/06/2022 )

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-25170[F] dated 10/06/2022 )

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.10046 of 2022 09.06.2022

¶42

SS(24/06/2022) 3P 6C

¶43

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

¶44

3/3

Rajamanickam v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamanickam 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

Sivakasi Hindu Nadars Uravin Murai Mahamai Fund, Vs The Commissioner

Pathmanaba Chettiar.v Vs The Commissioner

Senthilnathan Vs The Joint Commissioner

Vellaichamy.K Vs The Branch Manager

Thamimum Nasar Vs The Chief Executive Officer of Wakf

Tasmac Bar Owners Welfare Vs the Managing Director