Dismissed

Pandaram v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC22 Apr 2022WP(MD)/7711/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the third respondent. The Court held there was no merit in the petition, allowed the petitioner to reply to the notice, and remitted the jurisdictional question regarding the applicable Act to the petitioner's reply.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was allowed to reply to the notice and call for the appropriate legal provision to apply.

Pandaram Vs The Joint Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.7711 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :22.04.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.7711 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD).No.5824 of 2022

Pandaram

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Tirunelveli.

¶11

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Tirunelveli.

¶12

3.A.Shri Devi Takkar,

¶13

Arulmigu Karpagavinayagar Thirukovil, Naranammalpuram,

¶14

Thalayuthu Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in her order dated 13.04.2022 received by the petitioner on 16.04.2022 and quash the same as without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the impugned order mentioned property dated 13.04.2022.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh

¶18

For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.M.Vijayarathinam

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the third respondent.

¶21

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

¶22

1/2

¶23

W.P(MD).No.7711 of 2022

¶24

There is no merit in the present writ petition as the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice issued by the third respondent. It is open for the petitioner to answer to the same by giving reply. In case, the petitioner feels that the third respondent is an incompetent authority, it is open for the petitioner to reply before the third respondent. In this case, it is open for the third respondent to take up a call as to whether the proceedings have to be completed in terms of Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 or under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Prtoection Act, 1955.

¶25

The writ petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

¶29

¶30

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶31

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Tirunelveli.

¶32

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶33

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Tirunelveli.

¶34

3.The Takkar,

¶35

Arulmigu Karpagavinayagar Thirukovil, Naranammalpuram, Thalayuthu Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.M. VIJAYA RATHINAM, Advocate ( SR-21410[F] dated 26/04/2022 )

¶37

+1 CC to M/s.ANANTH C. RAJESH, Advocate ( SR-20696[F] dated 22/04/2022 )

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP. ( SR-21462[F] dated 26/04/2022 )

¶39

W.P(MD).No.7711 of 2022 22.04.2022

¶40

SS(CO)GC(05.05.2022) 2P 7C

¶41

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

¶42

2/2

Pandaram v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandaram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veluchamy.a Vs the District Collector

Dhinakaran.P.L Vs The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department

Veerammal R Vs The Regional Transport Authority Cum

Saravana Raj.S Vs the District Collector

M/s. Deepam International Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Welcome Recreation Club Vs The State Tax Officer