Disposed

Thirumalai Kumar .v v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC7 Apr 2022WP(MD)/6431/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to sanction the performance of 'Kumbabhisegam' at a specific temple. The court directed respondents to consider recent representations and pass appropriate orders within 8 weeks, citing specific Rules, Government Orders, and a circular.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioners' representation dated 01.03.2022 and pass appropriate orders on merits within 8 weeks.

Thirumalai Kumar .v Vs The Joint Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.6431 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.04.2022 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.6431 of 2022

¶4

1.V.Thirumalai Kumar

¶5

2.K.Venkitu ... Petitioners

¶6

/vs./

¶7

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶8

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul.

¶9

2.The Executive Officer,

¶10

Arulmigu Agobila Narasimma Perumal Temple, Nilakottai Taluk,

¶11

Dindigul District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to accord sanction for performance of 'Kumbabhisegam' at Arulmigu Thimmaraya Perumal Temple is situated at (Vellainathanpatti), Silukuvarpatti, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District on 04.05.2022 on the basis of the representations dated 08.06.2019, 01/03/2022.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For R1 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.C.Guhaseelarupan

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioners have filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to accord sanction for performance of 'Kumbabhisegam' of Arulmigu Thimmaraya Perumal Temple situated at (Vellainathanpatti), Silukuvarpatti, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District on 04.05.2022 on the basis of the representations dated 08.06.2019 and 01.03.2022.

¶17

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the temple is ready for conducting 'Kumbabhisegam'. However, no steps have been taken for conducting 'Kumbabhisegam' and that the members of the 'Viswakarma Community' are eager to perform the same.

¶18

3.The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent temple submits that a detailed direction has been given in W.P.No.574 of 2015, vide order dated 07.11.2016 as to how the 'Kumbabhisegam' has to be conducted. Pursuant to the same, the Government has also issued G.O.Ms.No.264, dated 01.11.2016. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent has also filed a copy of the circular dated 31.12.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/2

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.6431 of 2022

¶21

issued by the Commissioner, Chennai. The said circular gives a method to be followed for conducting 'Kumbabhisegam' of the temple. That apart, the Government has also framed Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules under Section 116 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

¶22

4.Under these circumstances, I direct the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation dated 01.03.2022 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, in the light of the aforesaid Rules, G.O.Ms.No.264, dated 01.11.2016 and the circular issued by the Commissioner, Chennai, dated 31.12.2018 bearing Na.Ka.No.57789/2015/Y2, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

5.The writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above observation. No costs.

// True Copy //

The Joint Commissioner,

¶28

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul.

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.DR.C.GUHASEELARUPAN, Advocate ( SR-17074[F] dated 07/04/2022 )

¶30

MGJ(21.04.2022) 2P 4C

¶31

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

¶32

2/2

Thirumalai Kumar .v v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thirumalai Kumar .v v. The Joint 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. Mariam Beevi, Vs the Tamilnadu Wakf Board

S.P. Mariappan Vs the Commissioner

Peetee Coach Builders Private Limited Vs Union of India

M/S.Vamsha Retail Ventures Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Karuppasamy K.V.D Vs The Joint Commissioner

Manimuthu Vs the District Collector