Partly allowed

Sasikumar Poosari .P v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC6 Jun 2022WP(MD)/9043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the removal of his authority to operate a temple bank account and subsequent authorization of another poojari. The Court held that the action was not arbitrary but for administrative convenience under a specific scheme.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation of 26.03.2022, provide a personal opportunity of hearing, and dispose of it on intimation.

Sasikumar Poosari .P Vs The Joint Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.9043 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD).No.9043 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.6492 and 6496 of 2022

¶7

P.Sasikumar Poosari ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. 1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 4.Ayyanar Poojari, Arulmigu Ayyanar Thirukovil, Kattuparamakudi, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding in Na.Ka.No.147/2022/A3 dated 20.01.2021 of the second respondent signed on 20.01.2022 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to operate the Ayyanar Kovil Bank Account No.157601000011311 in third respondent Bank.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manikandan For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader

¶11

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

¶12

1/3

¶13

W.P(MD).No.9043 of 2022

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.147/2022/A3, dated 20.01.2021, whereby, informing and authorising the Bank Manager that Ayyanar Poojari would be authorised to operate Bank Account No. 157601000011311 in the name of the temple.

¶16

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was earlier operating the bank account from the year 2019. By e.f.vz;.2371/2019/M2> dated 24.07.2019, the petitioner was authorised to operate the bank account. Suddenly, without any reasons the second respondent, removed the petitioner from the authorised person to operate the bank account and one Ayyanar had been nominated. Further, he submitted that when enquired the Bank Manager, a letter was shown by the third respondent, wherein, allegations have been made against the petitioner. The petitioner was neither informed of any such allegation nor called for any explanation. In such circumstances, the second respondent on the own coming to the conclusion with one sided materials are not proper. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

¶17

The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner is a poojari who conduct pooja for non-listed temple. It is a temple without income. The temple survives on the Oru Kaalai Pooja Scheme. As per the scheme, monthly maintenance money is remitted from the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowments Department to the Bank accounts of the respective needy temple and for the pooja and other expenses, poojaris are authorised. In this case, the petitioner was authorised in the year 2019. Apart from the petitioner, there are other poojaris, who perform poojai in turns. There was some allegation against the petitioner for not properly conducting pooja and not giving share to other poojaris. On ascertaining the same, thereafter, for better administration, the accounts authorisation given to the petitioner was cancelled and authorisation in the name of one Ayyanar poojari to operate the accounts given. This will not affect any of the petitioner's rights. He further submitted that enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the submission of materials that the petitioner was poojari of non-listed temple availing Oru Kaalai Pooja Scheme, for which, earlier the petitioner was authorized to operate the bank account and now, Ayyanar Poojari and other poojaris have been authorised by change of authorisation, it cannot be stated to be arbitrary violating any of the rights of the petitioner. It is for administrative convenience such instructions by the authorities.

¶19

The only grievance seems to be that the petitioner has sent a representation on 26.03.2022 to the respondents 1 and 2, but no action taken. In view of the same, the second respondent is directed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to consider the petitioner’s representation, if needed, give him a

¶20

2/3

¶21

W.P(MD).No.9043 of 2022

¶22

personal opportunity of hearing and dispose of the same within intimation to the petitioner.

¶23

The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (CS I)

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

Sn To

¶29

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶30

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶31

3.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.V.MANIKANDAN, Advocate ( SR-24487[F] dated 07/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-24614[F] dated 08/06/2022 )

¶33

W.P(MD).No.9043 of 2022 06.06.2022

¶34

SS(17/06/2022) 3P 6C

¶35

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

¶36

3/3

Sasikumar Poosari .P v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasikumar Poosari .P 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

Dr.a.Jawahar Palaniappan, Vs Mr.P.Varadarajan

Ness Wadia, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Kadiriyappan, M/a 46 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Sezhiyan .P Vs The Joint Commissioner

Pauldurai .S Vs The Secretary

Mohamed Abdullah, Vs the Union of India