Disposed

Sooriyan v. Vs the Commissioner

Madras HC7 Feb 2022WP(MD)/2426/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2022 regarding the Kumbabhisekam festival and pass appropriate orders within a week, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2022 to be considered and appropriate orders passed within one week.

Sooriyan v Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2426 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.02.2022 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.2426 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD) No.2102 of 2022

¶4

V.Sooriyan ... Petitioner

¶5

/vs./

¶6

1.The Commissioner,

¶7

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai -600 034.

¶8

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶9

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, B-1 Road, Ellis Nagar,

¶10

Madurai 625 016.

¶11

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, B-1 Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai 625 016.

¶13

4.S.Thirumal

¶14

5.P.Rajapandy

¶15

6.V.Karuppiah ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Manadamus, directing 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 19.01.2022 in respect of Kumbabhisekam function of Arulmigu Sri Valagarunathaswamy Temple, Sathangudi Village, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District to be held from 12.02.2022 to 14.02.2022 and appoint Special Officer for the Kumbabhisekam festival and to implement the orders passed by 2nd Respondent in O.A 2 of 2007.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manohar

¶18

For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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 19.01.2022. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/2

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.2426 of 2022

¶23

2.Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that appropriate orders will be passed on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.01.2022 on merits.

¶24

3.Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, the 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2022 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 1 week 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (AD II)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

To:

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai -600 034.

¶33

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶34

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, B-1 Road, Ellis Nagar,

¶35

Madurai 625 016.

¶36

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶37

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, B-1 Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai 625 016.

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.S.MANOHAR, Advocate ( SR-4843[F] dated 08/02/2022 )

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-4728[F] dated 08/02/2022 )

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.2426 of 2022 07.02.2022

¶41

MGJ(08.02.2022) 2P 6C

¶42

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

¶43

2/2

Sooriyan v. Vs the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sooriyan v. Vs 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

M/s.R.K.M.Electricals Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)

M/s.Sreevatsa Tube Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

G.Jerom Santhanaraj Vs The Tamil Nadu State Marketing corporation Ltd(Tasmac

Selvakumar C Vs the District Collector

Senthil Kumar S Vs the Commissioner, (Appellate Authority)

P.Kannan Vs The District Collector