Disposed

Chinnaiah.a v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious

Madras HC9 Jan 2023WP(MD)/316/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Upon the sixth respondent filing an affidavit requesting withdrawal of specific untoward language from an impugned order dated 10.08.2022, the court permitted the respondent to remove the language and issue a modified communication.

What did the court decide?

The sixth respondent shall issue a fresh communication in supersession of the impugned order dated 10.08.2022, modified to exclude the specific language mentioned in the petitioner's grievance.

Chinnaiah.a Vs The Commissioner of Hindu Religious — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 316 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.(MD) No. 316 of 2023

A.Chinnaiah

... Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.

¶13

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Ellis Nagar, Madurai..

¶14

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, Madurai District.

¶15

5.The Tahsildar,

¶16

Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶17

6.Takkar / Fit Person, Arulmigu Nevinatha Ayyanar Thirukovil, E.Malampatti, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶18

7.Vijayarahavan

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.P. (MD) No. 316 of 2023

¶22

8.N.A.Chandran

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 of the 6th respondent and quash the same.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Vellaichamy For Respondents : Mr. T.Villavankothai Additional Government Pleader For R1 to 3

¶26

Mr. D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader For R4 & R5

¶27

Mr. C.Guhaseelarupan For R6

¶28

Mr.S.Manohar For R8

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Heard Mr. S.Vellaichamy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

¶31

Mr. T.Villavankothai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for First

¶32

to Third Respondents, Mr. D.Gandhiraj, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents, Mr. C.Guhaseelarupan, Learned Counsel for the Sixth Respondent and Mr. S.Manohar, Learned Counsel for the

¶33

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

¶34

2/6

¶35

W.P. (MD) No. 316 of 2023

¶36

Eighth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶37

The grievance ventilated by the Petitioner is that in the proceedings dated 10.08.2022 sent by the Sixth Respondent to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, the following passage, which was not part of the minutes of the Peace Committee Meeting held on 10.08.2022, has been included:-

¶38

“nkYk; 11/08/2022 kw;Wk; 12/08/2022 Mfpa ,U jpd';fspy; midj;J jug;gpdUk; mtu;fspd; gHf;f tHf;ffg;go tUle;njhUk; Mo khjk; filrp tpahHd; kw;Wk; bts;spf;fpHikfspy; neu;j;jpf; fld; brYj;Jk; tifapy; fplha;btl;o rhkp Fk;gpLk;bghGJ vt;tpj mrk;ghtpjKk; epfHh tz;zk; TLjy; ghJfhg;g[ tH';f ntz;LkhW md;g[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/”

¶39

The Sixth Respondent has filed an Affidavit dated 09.01.2023 stating as follows:-

¶40

“It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased

¶41

3/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P. (MD) No. 316 of 2023

¶44

to permit the Sixth Respondent to withdraw the particular sentence

¶45

“Mo khjk; filrp tpahHd; kw;Wk; bts;spf;fpHikfspy;” in the

¶46

above operative portion as well as the word “Mo khjk;” mentioned in the subject portion of the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Sixth Respondent which was not mentioned in the order of the Fifth Respondent dated 10.08.2022 and thus render justice”

¶47

In view of the same, the Sixth Respondent shall issue fresh communication to the concerned authority in supersession of the impugned order dated 10.08.2022, which shall stand modified to that extent

¶48

In fine, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. Consequently,

¶49

connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶50

09.01.2023

¶51

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes /No sj

¶52

Note: Issue copy of the order by 30.01.2023

¶53

4/6

¶54

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

¶55

W.P. (MD) No. 316 of 2023

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.

¶59

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Ellis Nagar, Madurai..

¶60

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, Madurai District.

¶61

5.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶62

5/6

¶63

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

¶64

W.P. (MD) No. 316 of 2023 P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶65

¶66

W.P.(MD) No. 316 of 2023

¶67

Dated : 09.01.2023

¶68

6/6

¶69

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

Chinnaiah.a v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnaiah.a v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious

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

Kuttiraja.v Vs The Joint Commissioner

Palanisamy.M Vs the Secretary

K.Jayanth, Vs The Regional Transport Officer

Stella Manikkavalli Vs The Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development

J.Mary Celine Vs The Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development

shanthi Vs the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Deveopment Corporation Ltd.