Disposed

Muruganandham .S v. the Commissioner

Madras HC10 Feb 2022WP(MD)/2734/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 regarding a demand notice issued by the third respondent. Despite the opposite counsel suggesting an alternate remedy under Section 34A(3), the Court directed the third respondent to pass an appropriate order in compliance with a previous stay order dated 05.03.2020.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to pass an appropriate order within four weeks in terms of the order dated 05.03.2020 in W.P.(MD).No.7498 of 2018.

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

¶1

W.P(MD).No.2734 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.02.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.2734 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P(MD).No.2420 of 2022

S.Muruganandham

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai-34.

¶14

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶15

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Niligireeswararthoppu,

¶16

Teppakula Street, Thiruvanaikovil,

¶17

Trichy District.

¶18

3.Arulmigu Madurai Kaliamman Thirukovil, Through its Executive Officer, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District. ...Respondents

¶19

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to third respondent proceedings made in notice dated 31.01.2022, quash the same, and further direct him to pass appropriate orders on petitioner's objection dated 30.06.2020, as directed by this Court within a stipulated period as may be fixed by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian

¶21

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

¶22

1/3

¶23

W.P(MD).No.2734 of 2022

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition has been filed for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to third respondent proceedings made in notice dated 31.01.2022, quash the same, and further direct him to pass appropriate orders on petitioner's objection dated 30.06.2020.

¶26

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, this writ petition is being disposed of at the time of admission.

¶27

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petition is misconceived and the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Sub Section 3 of Section 34 A of the Act. It is noticed that ealier an order dated 05.03.2020, was passed in W.P (MD).No.74980 of 2018. The respondents were directed to give a calculation to the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter entitled to file a reply and thereafter appropriate orders were to be passed.

¶28

The third respondent has partly complied with the aforesaid directions by issuing notice and by giving calculations to the petitioner. The petitioner has also complied with the requirements of the aforesaid order by filing an objection and rejoinder to the reply of the respondents. The third respondent has however proceeded to issue the notice as if the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,83,519/- without proper adjudication.

¶29

Though the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is attractive in the light of express proviso under Section 34 A (3) of the Act, I am inclined to dispose this writ petition by directing the third respondent to pass an appropriate order in terms of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 05.03.2020, as both the petitioner and the respondents have accepted the said order.

¶30

Considering the same, I direct the third respondent to pass an appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order in terms of order dated 05.03.2020 in W.P.(MD).No.7498 of 2018 filed by the petitioner which came to be disposed of along with other six other writ petitions. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by such order that is to be passed by the third respondent, the petitioner has to work out appropriate remedy only in accordance with the provision of the Act and not by way of writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

2/3

¶32

W.P(MD).No.2734 of 2022

¶33

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶34

// True Copy //

¶35

¶36

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶37

¶38

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai-34. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Niligireeswararthoppu, Teppakula Street, Thiruvanaikovil, Trichy District. +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-5677[F] dated 11/02/2022 ) W.P(MD).No.2734 of 2022 10.02.2022 RD(01.03.2022) 3P 4C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Muruganandham .S v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muruganandham .S v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saravanakumar K Vs the Secretary to the Government

Ramkumar G Vs the Secretary to the Government

Pathinettan S Vs the Managing Director

J.Rajesh Kumar Vs the Dist. Manager

Deepan .T Vs the Commissioner

Muthu Raman .S.P Vs the Commissioner