Disposed

S.Chandrasekara Gurukal v. The Commissioner

Madras HC12 Oct 2023WP(MD)/21307/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by hereditary trustees challenging a notice for the appointment of an Executive Officer. Finding the notice itself not maintainable for Certiorari under a specific SC precedent, the Court directed the lower authority to furnish the records of the recommendation for objections.

What did the court decide?

File of the proceedings recommended for the appointment is directed to be furnished to the petitioner for objections.

S.Chandrasekara Gurukal Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.21307 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.21307 of 2023 and WMP(MD) No.17714 of 2023

¶7

S.Chandrasekara Gurukal ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tiruchirappalli - 3 Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

same.

¶16

W.P(MD)No.21307 of 2023

¶17

made in Na.Ka.No.57854/2023/L5 dated 16.08.2023 and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbu Raj Special Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the hereditary trustee cum Gurukkal of Arulmigu Pidari Somakaliamman Thirukovil, Trichy District. According to the petitioner, the temple is functioning with the available source of income and the petitioner is properly maintaining the administration of the temple. While so, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has issued a notice dated 16.08.2023 for appointment of Executive officer for the temple administration. Since there is no necessity for appointment of Executive officer for the temple, the petitioner has challenged the notice in this writ petition.

¶21

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P(MD)No.21307 of 2023

¶23

2.Mr.P.Subbu Raj, learned Special Government Pleader

¶24

who takes notice for the respondents submits that a recommendation has been made by the Assistant Commissioner for appointment of an Executive Officer for proper maintenance of Income and expenditure of the temple. Hence, a notice has been issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his objection, if any. However, instead of submitting his objection, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶25

3.This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶26

4.The impugned proceedings is only a notice and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs.

¶27

Kunishetty Satyanarayana [ (2006) 12 SCC 28 ].

¶28

5.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a

¶29

direction to the respondents to furnish a copy of the proceedings of

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No.21307 of 2023

¶33

the Assistant Commissioner, Trichy in Na.Ka.No.2290/2013/Aa1 dated 28.07.2023 to the petitioner, which is a basis for the impugned notice, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In such event, the petitioner is directed to file his response/explanation/objection to the notice within a period of one week from thereon. The first respondent shall take a decision on the proceedings within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of any objection by the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶34

12.10.2023

¶35

NCC: Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn

¶36

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P(MD)No.21307 of 2023

¶38

¶39

1.The Commissioner, The Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai.

¶40

2.The Joint Commissioner,, The Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, Thanjavur.

¶41

3.The Executive Officer,, Arul Migu Punniyakodeeswarar Swamy Temple, Vadaseri, Thanjavur.

¶42

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P(MD)No.21307 of 2023

¶44

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶45

vrn

¶46

Order made in W.P(MD)No.21307 of 2023 and WMP(MD) No.17714 of 2023

¶47

12.10.2023

¶48

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Chandrasekara Gurukal v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chandrasekara Gurukal v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Adhikari, Vs the District Collector

Sri Ramu Travels Vs the Regional Transport Authority

The Correspondent Vs The State Information Commissioner

Sahul Hameed I Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Sakthivel Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Selvendiran Vs the Sub Registrar