Allowed

Manimuthu v. the District Collector

Madras HC7 Apr 2022WP(MD)/13672/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal to appoint a Fit Person for a temple. It directed the Assistant Commissioner to appoint a Fit Person within 30 days if the disqualified respondent (fifth party) does not re-present the pending appeal under the HR&CE Act.

What did the court decide?

The fourth respondent to appoint a Fit Person within 30 days if the fifth respondent does not re-present the petition under Section 63(a) of the H.R. & C.E. Act.

Manimuthu Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

WP (MD) No.13672 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.04.2022 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶4

Writ Petition (MD) No.13672 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.10238 & 10239 of 2019 Manimuthu, S/o.Late. Gurusamy .. Petitioner Versus 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶5

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi Region, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶6

3.The Joint Commissioner,

¶7

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Dept., Tirunelveli.

¶8

4.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶9

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Dept., Tirunelveli – 2.

¶10

5.Rajendramani, S/o.Karuppasamy .. Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1418/2015/E1, dated 10.09.2018, quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the fourth respondent herein to appoint a Fit Person in regulating the Arulmigu Sudalaimada Swamy Temple, situated at Thalaivankottai Village, Nagaram P.O., Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, in view of the proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.1418/2015-1/E1, dated 21.09.2017, within a stipulated time limit that may be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mrs.P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi For R1 to R4 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.H.Arumugam

¶13

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

¶14

1/3

¶15

WP (MD) No.13672 of 2019

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the fourth respondent, informing him that his request for appointment of a Fit Person cannot be entertained, as the proceeding at the behest of the fifth respondent was pending before the Joint Commissioner under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as ''the H.R. & C.E. Act''].

¶18

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner elicited information under the Right to Information Act from the fourth respondent and by Communication, dated 17.12.2018, bearing R.T.I. Petition No.70/2018/Letter No.7503/2018, the fourth respondent has confirmed that there are no details of proceedings that are pending before the third respondent - Joint Commissioner.

¶19

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 01.03.2022, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that a petition under Section 63(a) of the H.R. & C.E. Act was filed on 01.09.2018 before the third respondent - Joint Commissioner.

¶20

4.Today, after the case was heard at length, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the fifth respondent had filed a petition under Section 63(a) of the H.R. & C.E. Act on 01.09.2018 and the same was returned on 18.09.2018. However, no steps have been taken by the fifth respondent to re-present the same.

¶21

5.Considering the above said submission, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition, by directing the fourth respondent to appoint a Fit Person within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in case, no attempt is made by the fifth respondent to re-present the petition and number it.

¶22

6.This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

smn2

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

WP (MD) No.13672 of 2019

¶29

¶30

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶31

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi Region, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶32

3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Dept., Tirunelveli.

¶33

4.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Dept., Tirunelveli – 2.

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.H. ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-17865[F] dated 11/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.P. KALAIYARASI BHARATHI, Advocate ( SR-17556[F] dated 08/04/2022 )

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-17539[F] dated 08/04/2022 )

¶36

WP (MD)No.13672 of 2019 07.04.2022

¶37

CK(CO)

¶38

KB(20.04.2022) 3P 8C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Manimuthu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manimuthu 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

P. Mariam Beevi, Vs the Tamilnadu Wakf Board

S.P. Mariappan Vs the Commissioner

Peetee Coach Builders Private Limited Vs Union of India

M/S.Vamsha Retail Ventures Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Thirumalai Kumar .v Vs The Joint Commissioner

Karuppasamy K.V.D Vs The Joint Commissioner