Dismissed

Mohammed Bilal v. The commissioner

Madras HC17 Apr 2023WP/8671/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to consider a representation regarding his tenancy. The Court held the petitioner was an encroacher after the lease was terminated and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Grant of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation.

Mohammed Bilal Vs The commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Writ Petition No.8671 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Writ Petition No.8671 of 2023

¶7

Mohammed Bilal ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

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

¶10

119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner-1, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶12

128, Yadaval Street, Padi, Chennai - 50.

¶13

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ellaiamman Thirukoil, Periamet, Chennai - 3. ... Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.07.2022 in accordance with law on merits, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

Writ Petition No.8671 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Senthil Kumaran For Respondent : Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate [HR & CE] *****

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of

¶21

mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation

¶22

made by the petitioner on 11.07.2022.

¶23

Heard Mr.T.Senthil Kumaran, learned counsel for petitioner

¶24

and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate [HR & CE],

¶25

appearing for the respondents.

¶26

It is seen from records that the third respondent through

¶27

notice dated 20.06.2022 had terminated the tenancy of original tenant and also demanded for the payment of arrears of rent. This termination notice has also been intimated to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, it has to be challenged in the manner known to law and a cause of action cannot be created by giving a representation.

¶28

As on today, the petitioner will have to be branded as an encroacher

¶29

since he has unauthorizedly squatting upon the property belonging to the

¶30

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

¶31

2/4

¶32

Writ Petition No.8671 of 2023

¶33

temple. Therefore, there is no question of directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner, more particularly, when the lease has already been terminated. This Court does not find any merit in this writ petition.

¶34

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶35

17.04.2023

¶36

Neutral Citation: Yes/No Index: yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order gm

¶37

¶38

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.

¶39

2.The Joint Commissioner-1, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 128, Yadaval Street, Padi, Chennai - 50.

¶40

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ellaiamman Thirukoil, Periamet, Chennai - 3.

¶41

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

¶42

3/4

¶43

Writ Petition No.8671 of 2023

¶44

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

¶45

¶46

Writ Petition No.8671 of 2023

¶47

17.04.2023

¶48

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

¶49

4/4

Mohammed Bilal v. The commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Bilal 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

Star Eco Energy P Ltd. Vs Thiru.Rajesh Lakhoni IAS and 2 Others

Sree Mtk Textiles P Ltd. Vs Rajesh Lakhoni, I.A.S

Jayaprakash Narayanan Vs Gopalakrishnan and another

Vengadessaperumal Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner

V.L. Srinivasan Vs The commissioner

P.M.Rajasekaran Vs The Commissioner