Dismissed

Sivakasi Hindu Nadars Uravin Murai Mahamai Fund, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC8 Jun 2022WP(MD)/3385/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to prevent respondents from restricting society members from supplying water and food to devotees at a temple. The petitioner petition sought to withdraw the writ of Mandamus. The court noted the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, closing related petitions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Sivakasi Hindu Nadars Uravin Murai Mahamai Fund, Vs The Commissioner — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P(MD).No.3385 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD).No.3385 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.2747 and 6635 of 2021

¶7

Sivakasi Hindu Nadars Uravin Murai Mahamai Fund, Represented by its Secretary, Mr.R.Koman, Having Office at Nadar Lodge, Virudhunagar Road, Sivakasi.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.

¶12

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of the Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-600015.

¶13

3.The Joint Commissioner,

¶14

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai.

¶15

4.The District Collector, Madurai District.

¶16

5.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sundara Mahalinga Swami Thirukoil, Sathuragiri, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District. ...Respondents

¶17

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from preventing the members of the petitioner's society from supplying drinking water and annadhanam to the devotees/pilgrims of Arulmigu Sundara Mahalinga Swami Thirukoil, Sathuragiri hills by staying at the madam and from executing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.P(MD).No.3385 of 2021

¶20

maintenance work at the madam.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajaraman For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.S.Manohar

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition and made an endorsement to that effect.

¶24

Recording the same, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

sn To

¶30

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.

¶31

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of the Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-600015.

¶32

3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai.

¶33

4.The District Collector, Madurai District.

¶34

5.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sundara Mahalinga Swami Thirukoil, Sathuragiri, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶35

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

¶36

2/3

¶37

W.P(MD).No.3385 of 2021

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.R.RAJARAMAN, Advocate ( SR-24513[F] dated 08/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.MANOHAR, Advocate ( SR-24770[F] dated 09/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-25160[F] dated 10/06/2022 )

¶39

W.P(MD).No.3385 of 2021 08.06.2022

¶40

SG(CO) KB(14.06.2022) 3P 9C

¶41

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

¶42

3/3

Sivakasi Hindu Nadars Uravin Murai Mahamai Fund, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivakasi Hindu Nadars Uravin Murai Mahamai Fund, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vairamuthu Chettiyar Vs the Joint Commissioner

T.Muthukumarasamy Vs The Commissioner

Pooja Timber and Saw Mill Vs The State Tax Officer

Pathmanaba Chettiar.v Vs The Commissioner

Senthilnathan Vs The Joint Commissioner

Velayutham.S Vs The Superintendent of Police