Allowed

Sri Annamalainathar Temple v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC16 Jun 2023WA/2566/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ appeal dismissing a stay order on interim relief and remitted the writ petition challenging the appointment of an Executive Officer to the Principal Seat at Chennai. The single judge had dismissed it on jurisdictional grounds, but this Bench relied on precedents to correct the forum.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition remitted to the learned Single Judge at the Principal Seat, Chennai, to be heard on merits.

Sri Annamalainathar Temple Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A. No. 2566 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.A. No. 2566 of 2022

¶9

¶10

C.M.P. No. 20242 of 2022

¶11

Sri Annamalainathar Temple, Kadayanallur Village, rep. by its Managing Trustee, Shri K. Balasubramanian Having Office at No.48, Kariamanikkamperumal Temple, South Lane, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District.

¶12

..Appellant

¶13

Vs.

¶14

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.

¶15

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶18

1\7

¶19

W.A. No. 2566 of 2022

¶20

¶21

The Executive Officer, Sri Gopalakrishnaswamy Temple, Krishnapuram, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District.

¶22

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Tirunelveli District.

¶23

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Thoothukudi District.

¶24

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Tenkasi District.

¶25

The Inspector, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Puliyankudi, Tirunelveli District.

¶26

S.S. Haja Mohaiden

¶27

..Respondents

¶28

Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 17.11.2022 passed in

¶29

W.P. No. 10560 of 2022.

¶30

For Appellant :: Mr.G. Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for Mr.S. Parthasarathy

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

2\7

¶33

W.A. No. 2566 of 2022

¶34

For Respondents :: Mr.R. Shanmuga Sundaram Advocate General assisted by Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Govt. Pleader & Ms. Sakina for R1 to R7

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

(Delivered by S.Vaidyanathan,J.)

¶37

The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 17.11.2022 passed in W.P. No. 10560 of 2022, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant Temple challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respodent/ Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments appointing the 6^th respondent herein as the Executive Officer of the said temple came to be dismissed on the ground that the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of Madurai Bench of this Court and therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained by the Principal Seat at Chennai.

¶38

2. Heard the submissions of both sides.

¶39

The only issue before this Court in this appeal is whether as

¶40

against the order of the 2^nd respondent, the writ petitioner needs to knock at https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

3\7

¶42

W.A. No. 2566 of 2022

¶43

the doors of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court or seek relief before the Principal Seat at Chennai.

¶44

Though the learned Single Judge has passed an elaborate order while dealing with the issue, in the light of the judgments of this Court in Sanjos Jewelers V. Syndicate Bank reported in (2007) 5 CTC 305 (FB); B. Stalin V. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India & 3 others reported in (2012) 4 CTC 113 (FB) and M/s. ORJ Electronics Oxides Ltd. V. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South Zonal Bnech) & another reported in 2008-1-L.W. 774 (DB), the order of the learned Single Judge is interfered with and the writ petition is remitted back to the learned Single Judge to be heard on merits at the Principal Seat at Chennai. We reiterate that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶45

Registry is directed to list the matter before the portfolio Judge dealing with the subject after taking his consent.

¶46

The Writ Appeal stands allowed with the above observation. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

¶47

¶48

(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.) 16.06.2023

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

4\7

¶51

W.A. No. 2566 of 2022

¶52

W.A. No.2566 of 2022

¶53

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J. and

¶54

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

¶55

This writ appeal was allowed by this Bench on 16.06.2023.

¶56

2 At the instance of the learned counsel for the appellants, this writ appeal is listed today under the caption “for being mentioned.”

¶57

3 When this Bench allowed this writ appeal on 16.06.2023, it was made clear that the interim order granted in the writ petition will stand restored, which observation was not incorporated in the order dated 16.06.2023.

¶58

4 In view of the above, the Registry is directed to incorporate the following sentence at the end of paragraph 6 of the order dated 16.06.2023 and issue fresh order copy:

¶59

“It is made clear that the interim order granted in the writ petition shall stand restored.”

¶60

(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 18.07.2023

¶61

cad

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

5\7

¶64

W.A. No. 2566 of 2022