Disposed

Ramalingam T v. the Commissioner

Madras HC1 Mar 2022WP(MD)/3764/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 for removal of name board installed on petitioner's property by HR&CE Department. The court disposed of the petition by directing the second respondent to consider the representation within six weeks after hearing concerned authorities.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation within six weeks.

Ramalingam T Vs the Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.3764 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.03.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.3764 of 2022

¶7

T.Ramalingam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungam Pakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nagercoil-629 002, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, (Affiliated and Non Affiliated Temple), Suchindram and Post- 629 704, Kanyakumari District. 4.The District Collector, Collector's Office, Nagercoil-629001, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 3 to remove the name board and stone marks installed in the petitioner's property in Survey No.42/22 situated at Vellimalai Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District considering the petitioner's representation dated 06.01.2022.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Murugan For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan

¶10

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

¶11

1/2

¶12

W.P(MD).No.3764 of 2022

¶13

ORDER

¶14

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1,2 and 4 and the learned counsel for the third respondent, this writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case by directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 06.01.2022 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to state that before passing such order, all the concerned authorities shall be heard, who are likely to be affected by this order to be passed by the second respondent. No costs.

¶15

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶16

// True Copy //

¶17

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶18

¶19

¶20

1.The Commissioner,

¶21

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungam Pakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶22

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶23

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nagercoil-629 002,Kanyakumari District.

¶24

3.The Executive Officer,

¶25

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, (Affiliated and Non Affiliated Temple),

¶26

Suchindram and Post- 629 704,

¶27

Kanyakumari District.

¶28

4.The District Collector,

¶29

Collector's Office, Nagercoil-629001, Kanyakumari District.

¶30

+1 CC to M/s.T.MURUGAN, Advocate ( SR-9534[F] dated 02/03/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-9422[F] dated 02/03/2022 )

¶31

W.P(MD).No.3764 of 2022 01.03.2022

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RK(17/03/2022) 2P 7C

¶33

2/2

Ramalingam T v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramalingam T 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

Vinistro Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)

Narayanan .Ar.Ct Vs the Commissioner

Saravanakumar Vs the Additional Superintendent of Police

Sundar Tharmalingam Vs the Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Kasthuri Vs the District Collector

M/S. Hari and Co. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)