Disposed

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar v. the Commissioner

Madras HC4 Sept 2024WP/13424/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking a direction to the HR&CE Joint Commissioner to decide a complaint lodged by the fourth respondent against the petitioner. The Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders on the complaint within eight weeks, without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders on the complaint dated 08.04.2013 within eight weeks; no costs.

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar Vs the Commissioner — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.No.13424 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.13424 of 2013 And

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶8

Sri Govindha Yathiraja Jeeyar

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Commissioner

¶12

Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶13

Uthamar Gandhi Salai

¶14

Nungambakkam,

¶15

Chennai – 600 034.

¶16

2.The Joint Commissioner

¶17

Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶18

Vellore.

¶19

3.The Assistant Commissioner Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶20

Kancheepuram.

¶21

4.Ethiraja Jeeyar Mutt Acharya ... Respondents

¶22

Prayer:

¶23

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to pass orders on the alleged complaint dated 08.04.2013 given by the fourth

¶24

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

1/4

W.P.No.13424 of 2013

respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar

¶29

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravichandran for R1 to R3 Additional Government Pleader R4 – No Appearance

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to pass orders on

¶32

the alleged complaint dated 08.04.2013 given by the fourth respondent.

¶33

2.The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent lodged false and frivolous complaint as against the petitioner and the second respondent conducted enquiry, however, till date no orders have been passed. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶34

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without going into the merits of the case, this Court may issue direction to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the complaint dated 08.04.2013 given by the fourth respondent, within a reasonable time frame.

¶35

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

¶36

2/4

¶37

W.P.No.13424 of 2013

¶38

4.Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel

¶39

appearing for the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the respondents 1 and 2 to pass appropriate orders on the complaint dated 08.04.2013 given by the fourth respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

5.This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶41

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

04.09.2024

¶43

pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No

¶44

¶45

1.The Commissioner Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶46

Uthamar Gandhi Salai Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶47

2.The Joint Commissioner Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶48

Vellore.

¶49

3.The Assistant Commissioner Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and

¶50

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.13424 of 2013

¶53

Charitable Endowments Kancheepuram.

¶54

M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri

¶55

W.P.No.13424 of 2013 And M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶56

04.09.2024

¶57

4/4

¶58

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

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar 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

S.Karthikeyan Vs the State Bank of India

L.Ramaseshan Vs The Superintending

Icic Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs the Taluk Legal Service Committee

S.Thangayammal, Vs The Commissioner

G.Rajmohan Vs The Commissioner

A.Govindan Vs The Joint Commissioner/