Disposed

C.Karthikeyan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC1 Jul 2024WP/17338/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of HR&CE to consider a petitioner's representation regarding hereditary trusteeship and pass orders within eight weeks, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.05.2024 and pass orders within eight weeks.

C.Karthikeyan Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.07.2024

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

W.P.No.17338 of 2024

¶6

C. Karthikeyan .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶9

The Joint commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Dr. Balasundaram Salai, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Jawans Bhavan, 2^nd Floor, Gandhiji Road, Erode – 638 001.

¶11

The Fit Person

¶12

A/m Selva Vinayagar Kariya Kaliamman, Mariyamman and Selambur amman Temple, Ennamangalam Village, Andiyur Taluk, Erode District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

Prayer: This petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution

¶17

of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the representation dated 24.05.2024 and to dispose the same in

¶18

time bound manner known to law and pass orders.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S. Usha Rani

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed to seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus

¶22

directing the third respondent to consider the representation dated 24.05.2024 and to dispose the same in a time bound manner.

¶23

In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel

¶24

appearing for either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that the ancestors of the petitioner

¶26

are conducting festivals in A/M Selva Vinayagar Temple for several decades and their family members are holding the post of hereditary trustees. The petitioner became major and assumed the charges of hereditary trusteeship. But, the poojaries in the said temple started

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

interfering with the administration of the temple and started disturbing the petitioner. Due to which the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.124 of 1996 before the Sub-Ordinate Judge at Bhavani seeking for the relief of declaring the petitioner as a hereditary trustee and the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be recorded as a hereditary trustee in the register maintained by the HR&CE. Hence, the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents on 24.05.2024. However, the same was not considered. Aggrieved over the same the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice if this Court issues a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.05.2024 and pass orders.

¶31

The learned Special Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents submitted that even though the suit filed in O.S.No.124 of 1996 before the Sub-Ordinate Judge at Bhavani was decreed in favour of the petitioner, the appeal filed was dismissed in A.S.No.43 of 2005 before

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

the Principal District Judge, Erode. Further more the Fit person was appointed in the year 2005 itself and the petitioner has now filed the present petition. Hence, prays to dismiss this petition.

¶35

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court, directs the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.05.2024 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed

¶37

of. No costs.

¶38

01.07.2024

¶39

Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Index : Yes/No smn

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

The Commissioner,

¶43

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶44

The Joint commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Dr. Balasundaram Salai, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶45

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Jawans Bhavan, 2^nd Floor, Gandhiji Road, Erode – 638 001.

¶46

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

¶47

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

smn

W.P.No.17338 of 2024

01.07.2024

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

C.Karthikeyan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Karthikeyan 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

Tmt. Anitha Murthy, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

T.P.Kandan Vs the Director

P.Sagunthala Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O)

M.Surendhar Vs the Road Safety and Transport Commissioner

Annamalai Vs the Commissioner

N.Kavitha, Vs the Director