Disposed

P.Pachamuthu, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC1 Sept 2023WP/28473/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging an order of remand. In view of the petitioners' submission that they have no grievance with the order, the Court directed the Joint Commissioner to dispose of the application within four months and continue the petitioners' interim management.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the original application within four months from the date of order; directed the respondent to hear the matter on a fixed date without formal notice.

P.Pachamuthu, Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.28473 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.28473 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 and W.M.P.No.24671 of 2023

¶7

1.P.Pachamuthu

¶8

2.S.Mani

¶9

3.K.Sigamani

¶10

4.Seetharaman

5.Sengodan

... Petitioners

vs.

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Administrative Department,

¶15

Chennai – 600 034.

¶16

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Administrative Department,

¶17

Salem.

¶18

3.Vaithilingam

¶19

4.Muthu

¶20

1/6

¶21

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

W.P.No.28473 of 2014

5.Samikannu

6.Pachamuthu

7.Govindan

8.Kumar

9.Rajendiran

10.Venkatachalam

11.Thangaraju

12.P.Deivayanai

13.Muthu 14.Muthu

15.Murthy

16.R.N.G.Vijayakumar

17.R.Chandra Mohan

18.R.Thillai

19.R.Socrates 20.R.Ravi

¶37

... Respondents

¶38

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to order

¶39

2/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.28473 of 2014

¶42

dated 24.06.2014 in A.P.No.53 of 2008/D2 of the Respondents 1 and 2 herein and quash the same.

¶43

For Petitioner	: Ms.AL.Ganthimathi Senior Advocate for Mr.V.Kumaravelan
For R1 and R2	: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
	Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)
For R3 to R15	: Mr.V.Srikanth

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

The writ petition is filed challenging the order of remand passed by

¶46

the 1 st respondent and directing the 2 nd respondent to consider the application filed by the writ petitioners under Section 63 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 afresh.

¶47

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Senior

¶48

Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions from the counsel on record, submits that the petitioners are not having any grievance with regard to the order of remand passed by the 1 st respondent and therefore, the 2 nd respondent may be directed to dispose of the application filed by the

¶49

3/6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.28473 of 2014

¶52

petitioner under Section 63 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 within time frame.

¶53

3. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that by virtue of

¶54

interim order granted by this Courts, the petitioners have been continuing in the management of the affairs of the temple in question, therefore, the same position may be directed to be continued.

¶55

4. In view of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel on

¶56

instructions, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the 2 nd respondent to dispose of the Original Application No.7 of 2001 filed by the petitioners

¶57

as per the order impugned in this writ petition within a period of four months from 22.09.2023.

¶58

5. As far as interim protection prayed by the petitioner is concerned, it

¶59

is always open to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the

¶60

2nd respondent seeking interim protection.

¶61

4/6

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.No.28473 of 2014

¶64

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents 3

¶65

to 15 submitted that the date may be fixed for first hearing before the

¶66

2nd respondent. Therefore, the 2 nd respondent is directed to take up the matter for hearing on 22.09.2023 at 2.30 p.m and all the parties are directed to appear before the 2 nd respondent/Joint Commissioner on the said date, without expecting any formal notice from the 2 nd respondent.

¶67

7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶68

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶69

01.09.2023 (1/2) Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No dm To

¶70

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Administrative Department, Chennai – 600 034.

¶71

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Administrative Department, Salem.

¶72

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

5/6

W.P.No.28473 of 2014

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.28473 of 2014

¶78

01.09.2023 (1/2)

¶79

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

¶80

6/6

P.Pachamuthu, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Pachamuthu, v. The 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

M/S.Swathi Ecogen Private Ltd, Vs the Deputy Director

Devikala Gopalakrishnan Vs The Commissioner of Police

Madhulika Flat Owners Vs The District Collector

S.Vishnupriya Vs The Member Secretary

M/S.Moc Dies and Moulds Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Managing Director

S.Saraswathi Vs the District Collector