Disposed

Balasubramaniam v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC8 Apr 2022WP(MD)/6529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 was disposed of at the time of admission. The Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within thirty days, ensuring the petitioner is heard.

What did the court decide?

No costs; the respondent directed to consider the petitioner's representation within thirty days after hearing the petitioner.

Balasubramaniam Vs The Joint Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.6529 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.04.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.6529 of 2022

¶7

Balasubramaniam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Pudukottai District. 2.The Executive Officer/Inspector, HR&CE Department, Themavoor, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶8

3.The Manager, Pudukottai Samasthanam, Pudukottai. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the second respondent from interfering the petitioner's right to do pooja in Arulmigu Muthumariamman Temple, Themavoor, or on the properties enjoying by the petitioner vide Sy.No. Sy.No.687/1, 685/1, 685/2, 703/1, 242, 688/1 and 707/1 as service innamdars Arulmigu Muthumariamman Temple, Themavoor of unnecessarily.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For R1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.G.Mathavan

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶12

This writ petition stands disposed of at the time of admission without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

1/2

¶14

W.P(MD).No.6529 of 2022

¶15

by directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation, dated 24.01.2022 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to state that before passing any such order, the petitioner shall be heard. No costs.

¶16

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶17

¶18

To 1.The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Pudukottai District. 2.The Executive Officer/Inspector, HR&CE Department, Themavoor, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶19

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-17953[F] dated 11/04/2022 )

¶20

+1 CC to M/s.K.P. NARAYANA KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-18012[F] dated 12/04/2022 )

¶21

W.P(MD).No.6529 of 2022 08.04.2022

¶22

RK(20/04/2022) 2P 5C

¶23

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

¶24

2/2

Balasubramaniam v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasubramaniam v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Thirumalai Kumar .v Vs The Joint Commissioner

Karuppasamy K.V.D Vs The Joint Commissioner

N.Ayyappan, Vs the Commissioner

R.v.S.Veeramani@ v.Mani Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Pravin Kumar .R Vs The State of Tamil Nadu