Disposed

Madurai Tallakulam Chinna Chokkikulam Yadavar Trust v. The Commissioner

Madras HC23 Jan 2023WP(MD)/23344/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition challenging dismissal of impleadment application. Court directed Joint Commissioner to hear related temple declaration and scheme framing applications jointly with assured weekly hearings and reasoned orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Second Respondent to jointly hear related temple applications with weekly hearings and pass a reasoned order on merits after due hearing.

Madurai Tallakulam Chinna Chokkikulam Yadavar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 23344 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 23344 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P. (MD) No. 17422 of 2022

¶8

Madurai Tallakulam Chinna Chokkikulam Yadavar Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee P.Kannan

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

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

¶12

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai.

¶13

M.Selvakumar

¶14

M.Muthuramesh

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. (MD) No. 23344 of 2022

¶18

5. P.Malaichamy

¶19

K.Ramachandran

¶20

C.Ravi

¶21

The Thakkar, Arulmigu Navaneethakrishnan and Sri Sakkarathalvar Thirukovil, Present at Arulmigu Madana Gopala Swamy Thirukovil, Madurai Town.

¶22

P.Sowridoss

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent passed in I.A.No.1 and 2 in O.A.No.24 and 25 of 2011 dated 18.08.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to implead the petitioner as Managing Trustee of Madurai Tallakulam Chinna Chokkikulam Yadavar Trust and decide the manner on merits within the time fixed by this Honourable Court.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr. H.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr. P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader (R1 & R2) Mr. S.Manohar (R8)

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P. (MD) No. 23344 of 2022

¶30

Heard Mr. H.Arumugam, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. P.Subbaraj, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First and Second Respondents and Mr. S.Manohar, Learned Counsel for the Eighth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶31

The Third to Fifth Respondents have filed the applications in O.A. Nos. 24 and 25 of 2011 before the Second Respondent to declare that Arulmigu Sri Navaneethakrishnan and Sri Sakkarathalvar Temple (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) situated in T.S. No. 2904, Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai is a Public Temple and for framing a scheme and appoint them as Trustrees of the said Temple. The Petitioner had filed objections in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2022 for impleading itself as Respondent in O.A. Nos. 24 and 25 of 2011 which are pending before the Second Respondent, but it has been dismissed by order dated 18.08.2022, which is challenged in this Writ Petition.

¶32

It is represented that after the filing of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has 3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P. (MD) No. 23344 of 2022

¶35

filed O.A. No. 1 of 2023 before the Second Respondent, which is posted for hearing on 25.01.2023 and that the Petitioner would be satisfied if all the applications in O.A. Nos. 24 and 25 of 2011 and O.A. No. 1 of 2023 relating to the same Temple are heard together by the Second Respondent.

¶36

Having regard to the limited relief sought, this Court without going into any merits of the controversy, passes the following order:-

¶37

(i) the Second Respondent shall jointly hear the applications in O.A. Nos. 24 and 25 of 2011 and O.A. No. 1 of 2023 relating to the Temple of the Eighth Respondent;

¶38

(ii) it shall be ensured that there is atleast one effective hearing every week showing progress of these cases;

¶39

(iii) after affording full opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and all other parties concerned following the prescribed procedure, a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions raised by the parties on merit and in accordance with law and the decision taken shall be communicated to the parties under written acknowledgment; and

¶40

(iv) the report of compliance shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P. (MD) No. 23344 of 2022

¶44

this Court.

¶45

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶46

23.01.2023

¶47

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes /No pkn

¶48

Note: Issue order copy by 23.06.2023

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai.

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

W.P. (MD) No. 23344 of 2022

¶55

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶56

pkn

¶57

Copy to

¶58

The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai – 625023.

¶59

W.P.(MD)No. 23344 of 2022

¶60

Dated : 23.01.2023

¶61

6/6

¶62

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

Madurai Tallakulam Chinna Chokkikulam Yadavar Trust v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madurai Tallakulam Chinna Chokkikulam Yadavar Trust v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendran Vs The Regional Transport Officer

Yousuf.a Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Mohammed Ibrahim Ahamed Vs The Assistant commissioner of central GST and Central Excise

Adline Festus. J Vs The Tahsildar

Dinesh K Vs The Superintendent of Customs

Munchira Madom, Rep by Its Vs the Commissioner