Dismissed

Ramesh Kannan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC7 Jul 2022WP(MD)/1591/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking an enquiry into restrictions on a petitioner's right to conduct poojas in a village temple was dismissed as infructuous. The Court observed that the petitioner had already been permitted to perform religious duties in the temple after the petition was filed, rendering the relief sought unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

none granted as the petition was dismissed as infructuous

Ramesh Kannan Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

WP(MD)No.1591 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.1591 of 2021

¶7

Ramesh Kannan, S/o.Gurusamy

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶11

Chennai – 34.

¶12

2.The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thirupathur Road, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶13

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶14

4.M.Chellasamy, President, Kovil Management Committee, Arulmighu Thavasalingaswamy Thirukovil, Mulipatti Village, Virudhunagar Taluk and District. .. Respondents

¶15

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent herein to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/4

¶17

WP(MD)No.1591 of 2021

¶18

conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation, dated 22.12.2020, within a stipulated time to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothibasu For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.S.Venkatesh

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the third respondent herein to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation, dated 22.12.2020, within a stipulated time to be fixed by this Court.

¶22

2.The petitioner submits that he was doing Poojas in the temple named, ''Sri Arulmighu Thavasalingam Thirukovil'' from his childhood days. After construction of the Temple, on 28.08.2020, Kumbabisekham was conducted in a grand manner. The committee members, who are not the followers of Sri Arulmighu Thavasilingasamy, imposed a condition that a Brahmin, who knows Sanksrit, only should conduct Poojas in the Temple. The said Temple is a Village Temple and there is no necessity to conduct Poojas in Sanskirt. The Villagers have passed a resolution in support of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 22.12.2020 to the respondents 1 to 3.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Thereafter, no action has been taken. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶24

2/4

¶25

WP(MD)No.1591 of 2021

¶26

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel

¶27

appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that after filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has been permitted to do Poojas and now, the petitioner is doing Poojas in the said Temple and therefore, the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶28

4.Recording the above said submission made by the learned counsel on

¶29

either side, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

Index : Yes/No smn2

07.07.2022

1.The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶34

Chennai – 34.

¶35

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶36

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thirupathur Road, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶37

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

3/4

¶40

WP(MD)No.1591 of 2021

¶41

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶42

smn2

¶43

Writ Petition (MD) No.1591 of 2021

¶44

07.07.2022

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

4/4

Ramesh Kannan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kannan v. the Commissioner

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

Shri Nirathala Mudaiya Ayyanar Sonaiya Kovil Vs Ayyanar

Haji.M.Nainar Mohamed. Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Dhanasekaran.R.S Vs The District Forest Officer

M/s. Sri Shunmuga Traders Vs The Commissioner or Customs

M/s. Sri Shunmuga Traders Vs The Commissioner of Customs

M/s. Genuine Spices Vs The Commissioner of Customs