Dismissed

Pazha. Kathiresan Chettiyar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC20 Dec 2022WP(MD)/28535/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging temple customs and requesting honor for the petitioner. The petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to pursue an alternative remedy under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Pazha. Kathiresan Chettiyar Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 28535 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.12.2022

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 28535 of 2022

¶7

Pazha. Kathiresan Chettiyar

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶12

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Sivangai District, Sivagangai.

¶13

4.Sivagangai Samasthanam Devasthanam, Rep. by its Manager, P.Ilango, No.99, Old Palace Complex, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶14

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P. (MD) No. 28535 of 2022

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the second and third respondents not to made any change in respect of the customary practice prevailing in the temple and also ensure to grand first honor to the petitioner's Muru.Pazha family during the festivals and other rituals to the deity god of the temple namely Sri Periyamarutheeswarar situated at Nerkuppai Village, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District and consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 17.11.2022.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. P.Venkatesan

¶21

For R1 to R3 & R5: Mr. P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr. S.Madhavan

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard Mr. P.Venkatesan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.

¶24

P.Subbaraj, Learned Special Government Pleader for the First to Third and Fifth Respondents and Mr. S.Madhavan, learned Counsel for the Fourth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart fro the pleadings of the parties.

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P. (MD) No. 28535 of 2022

¶28

When it is pointed out that the Petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy to determine the question as to whether he is entitled by custom to any honour in the festival conducted in the religious institution by making necessary application under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, before the concerned Joint Commissioner, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to resort to the aforesaid procedure and he has made an endorsement to that effect in the Court record.

¶29

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty. No costs.

¶30

20.12.2022

¶31

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ta

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P. (MD) No. 28535 of 2022

¶35

¶36

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai.

¶37

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶38

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Sivangai District, Sivagangai.

¶39

4.Sivagangai Samasthanam Devasthanam, Rep. by its Manager, P.Ilango, No.99, Old Palace Complex, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶40

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶41

4/5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P. (MD) No. 28535 of 2022

¶44

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

¶45

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.28535 of 2022

¶47

20.12.2022

¶48

5/5

¶49

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

Pazha. Kathiresan Chettiyar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pazha. Kathiresan Chettiyar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Muthukumarsamy Vs the District Manager

Jamila Barisha Vs The District Collector

Saravanan.v Vs The Commissioner

M/S.Future Polysters, Vs the Regional Micro and Small

Vallinayagi Vs The Managing Trustee

Mariappan Vs the District Collector