Disposed

K.Gurumurthy v. The State of TamilNadu

Madras HC18 Apr 2023WP/11373/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the State and local revenue officials to appoint a Special Officer for the Thiruvannamalai Sri Parvatharajakula Sangam to manage the newly elected body. The Court directed the third respondent, the District Registrar, to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2021 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

K.Gurumurthy Vs The State of TamilNadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.11373 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.11373 of 2023

K.Gurumurthy

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Registration Department of Society, Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai Districtm Thiruvannamalai.

¶13

The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

¶14

The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamali.

¶15

Page 1 of 7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.11373 of 2023

¶18

5. The Tahsildar,

¶19

Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District.

¶20

K.Subramaniyan, The President of the Thiruvannamalai Sri Parvatha Rajakula Sangam.

¶21

S.Natarajan, The Secretary of the Thiruvannamalai Sri Parvatha Rajakula Sangam

¶22

S.Murugan,

¶23

The Treasurer of the Thiruvannamalai Sri Parvatha Rajakula Sangam.

¶24

(The respondents 6 to 8 are having office at No.22, Thirumanjana Gopura Veethi, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District)

¶25

The Executive Officer, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District. ... Respondents

¶26

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, particularly, the respondents 1 to 5 to take action for appointing a Special Officer to take in-charge or to take necessary action to function with the newly elected body for the Thiruvannamalai Sri Parvatharajakula Sangam, situated at No.22, Thirumanjana Gopura Veethi, Thiruvannamalai on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2021.

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.11373 of 2023

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R5

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the

¶33

respondents, particularly, the respondents 1 to 5 to take action for appointing a Special Officer to take in-charge or to take necessary action to function with the newly elected body for the Thiruvannamalai Sri Parvatharajakula Sangam, situated at No.22, Thirumanjana Gopura Veethi, Thiruvannamalai on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2021.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶35

that the petitioner is a Member of Thiruvannamalai Sri Parvatharajakula Sangam, a registered Sangam, vide Registration No.22/1962 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. However, no election was conducted for more than a decade. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents on 18.01.2021. But the same has not been considered till

¶36

Page 3 of 7

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.11373 of 2023

¶39

date. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further

¶41

submit that though very many grounds have been raised in the present Writ Petition, it would suffice, if this Court may issues a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2021 and

¶42

pass appropriate orders, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶43

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

¶44

respondent has no serious objection for such an order being passed by this

¶45

Court.

¶46

5. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶47

_________ Page 4 of 7

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.11373 of 2023

¶50

Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel for

¶51

the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2021 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶53

costs.

¶54

18.04.2023

¶55

NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶56

vji

¶57

_________ Page 5 of 7

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.No.11373 of 2023

¶60

¶61

The Principal Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Registration Department of Society, Secretariat,

¶62

Chennai - 600 009.

¶63

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai Districtm Thiruvannamalai.

¶64

The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

¶65

The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamali.

¶66

The Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District.

¶67

The Executive Officer, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District.

¶68

_________ Page 6 of 7

¶69

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

W.P.No.11373 of 2023

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

vji

W.P.No.11373 of 2023

¶74

18.04.2023

¶75

_________ Page 7 of 7

¶76

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

K.Gurumurthy v. The State of TamilNadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Gurumurthy v. The State of TamilNadu

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

Tower Vision India Private Limited Vs Assistant Electrical Engineer

S.Prathima Vs Union of India

Viswanathan Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

M/s. Akshaya Building Solution Vs The Assistant Commissioner of

S.Jayakumar Vs The Commissioner

Marg Properties Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Real estate Regulatory Authority