Disposed

Arulmigu Mandhiramoorthy Vinayagar Temple v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC2 Aug 2023WP(MD)/18490/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to dispose of a long-pending Original Application, directing the petitioner to seek restoration or set aside of the default dismissal order from the authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit application to set aside the order dated 25.10.2012 in O.A.No.3 of 1997 for default dismissal.

Arulmigu Mandhiramoorthy Vinayagar Temple Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.18490 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.18490 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD).No.15328 of 2023

¶7

Arulmigu Mandhiramoorthy Vinayagar Temple, Represented by its Managing Trustee, RM.Annamalai

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Joint Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Sivagangai.

¶11

2.The Assistant Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Sivagangai. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose the long pending application filed by the petitioner in O.A.No.3 of 1997 within time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader.

¶15

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

¶16

1/5

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.18490 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose the long pending application filed by the petitioner in O.A.No.3 of 1997.

¶20

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the aforesaid O.A was already dismissed for default on 25.10.2012 itself. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order was not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner seeks liberty to restore the same, since the petition was dismissed for default. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that they received the summons on 05.09.2012 which had directed the petitioner to appear before the Joint Commissioner on 15.09.2012. Subsequently, there was Advocates boycott and the Joint Commissioner has posted the case on very next day itself. But on that day, the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner dismissed the case for default. Even though a copy of the order dated 25.10.2012 in O.A.No. 3 of 1997, is marked to the petitioner through their counsel, the petitioner submitted that the said order copy was not served on him.

¶21

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

¶22

2/5

¶23

W.P.(MD).No.18490 of 2023

¶24

Be that as it may, the petitioner is directed to submit an application before the authorities to set aside the order dated 25.10.2012 in O.A.No.3 of 1997, which was passed as “dismissed for default”. The Joint Commissioner without insisting on delay and limitation shall consider the case on merits. The petitioner is also at liberty to file an interim petition and the Joint Commissioner shall consider the same and pass order by taking all facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall

¶26

be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

¶27

closed.

¶28

02.08.2023

¶29

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Nsr

¶30

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

¶31

3/5

¶32

W.P.(MD).No.18490 of 2023

¶33

¶34

1.The Joint Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Sivagangai.

¶35

2.The Assistant Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Sivagangai.

¶36

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

¶37

4/5

¶38

W.P.(MD).No.18490 of 2023

¶39

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶40

Nsr

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.18490 of 2023

¶42

02.08.2023

¶43

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

¶44

5/5

Arulmigu Mandhiramoorthy Vinayagar Temple v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmigu Mandhiramoorthy Vinayagar Temple 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kannaya Naidu.B Vs The District Collector

Hariharan.P Vs the District Collector

Musthafa Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Srinivasan.N Vs the Dist.Collector

Sivakumar Vs the Sub Registrar

Chellappan.Rm Vs The Madurai Corporation