Remanded

Mani S.P. v. the Commissioner

Madras HC8 Feb 2022WP(MD)/2345/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits, directing the Joint Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation on temple accounting and poojas within six weeks after issuing necessary notice.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on merits within six weeks after issuing notice.

Mani S.P. Vs the Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2345 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.02.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.2345 of 2022

¶3

S.P.Mani ... Petitioner

¶4

/vs./

¶5

1.The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department, Nungampakkam, Chennai.

¶6

2.The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department, Sivagangai.

¶7

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department, Sivagangai.

¶8

4.S.Thenan 5.T.Thirupathi 6.Natchan @ Raja 7.S.Rajendran ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Manadamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary action for accounting the jewels donated by the petitioner's and the villagers to the deity Arulmigu Malayala Sastha Ayyanar Temple, K.Pudhupatti Village, Singampunari Taluk, Thirupattur, Sivagangai District and for performance of poojas in the temple in a proper fashion on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For Respondents : Mr.P..Subbaraj Special Government Pleader (for R1 to R3)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Writ Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case considering the fact that the petitioner is only seeking for consideration of the representation dated 22.11.2021.

¶13

2.Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that appropriate orders will be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

1/2

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.2345 of 2022

¶16

passed on the representation of the petitioner dated 22.11.2021 on merits.

¶17

3.Recording the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2021 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that before such orders are passed, notice shall be issued to all the persons, who are likely to be affected by the aforesaid order. No costs.

¶18

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶19

// True Copy //

¶20

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶21

sji

¶22

To:

¶23

1.The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department, Nungampakkam, Chennai.

¶24

2.The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department, Sivagangai.

¶25

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department, Sivagangai.

¶26

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-5008[F] dated 09/02/2022 )

¶27

+1 CC to M/s.R.G.SHANKAR GANESH, Advocate ( SR-4838[F] dated 08/02/2022 )

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.2345 of 2022 08.02.2022

¶29

RK(25/02/2022) 2P 6C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

Mani S.P. v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani S.P. 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

Sooriyan v Vs the Commissioner

Selvakumar C Vs the District Collector

Senthil Kumar S Vs the Commissioner, (Appellate Authority)

Mahendran @ Moovendran Vs the Managing Director

Mohanasundaram v Vs the Deputy Transport Commissioner

Karthick .D Vs the Joint Commissioner