Disposed

Govindaraj Chettiyar I v. the Commissioner

Madras HC14 Feb 2022WP(MD)/2881/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of this writ petition without forming an opinion on merits, directing the Third Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, appoint a fit person for the Maha Sivarathri Pooja, and summon a rival claimant.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Third Respondent to consider representation, appoint person for Pooja, and summon rival party by 22.02.2022.

Govindaraj Chettiyar I Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.2881 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.02.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.2881 of 2022

¶7

I.Govindaraj Chettiyar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner, HR&CE Department, No.119, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2.The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, No.B1, Ellis Nagar, Madurai-625 016. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Virudhunagar-626 001. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to act on his representation dated 18.11.2021 and also direct the third respondent to appoint a fit person for performing Maha Sivarathri Pooja falls on 01.03.2022 Viz. from 28.02.2022 to 02.03.2022.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Harikrishna Jalukka For B.Fazil Kirmani

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The 3^rd respondent shall consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2021 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The 3^rd respondent shall also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/2

¶16

W.P(MD).No.2881 of 2022

¶17

hear the rival party, namely, Ravichandran, who claims to be the relative of late.Perumal Chettiyar, by issuing appropriate summons to him. This exercise shall be carried out by the 3^rd respondent on or before 22.02.2022, so that the request of the petitioner for conducting Maha Sivarathri Poojas from 28.02.2022 to 01.03.2022 can be considered. No costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶19

// True Copy //

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

To 1.The Commissioner, HR&CE Department, No.119, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2.The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, No.B1, Ellis Nagar, Madurai-625 016. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Virudhunagar-626 001.

¶23

+1 CC to M/s.B.FAZIL KIRMANI, Advocate (SR-6047[F] dated 14/02/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-6232[F] dated 15/02/2022 )

¶24

W.P(MD).No.2881 of 2022 14.02.2022

¶25

RK(18/02/2022) 2P 6C

¶26

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

¶27

2/2

Govindaraj Chettiyar I v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindaraj Chettiyar I 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

M/S Navas Traders Vs the Additional Commercial

M.Dhanapal Vs Regional Transport Officer

Suresh Mohan .v Vs the Commissioner of Corporation

Iyem Perumal.S Vs the Commissioner

Rathinam.R Vs the Joint Commissioner

M/S.W.Hogewoning Dried Flowers India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Tamilnadu