Disposed

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar v. the Secretary

Madras HC4 Sept 2024WP/33655/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment as Hereditary Religious Dharmakartha via a writ petition. Upon understanding that the matter lies within the jurisdiction of the competent civil court under the relevant Scheme, this court granted liberty to file the appropriate civil petition and disposed of the writ petition with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file appropriate petition before the competent civil court. Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions disposed of with no costs.

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.33655 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.33655 of 2013 And

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶8

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Secretary,

¶12

Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Tourism, Cultural &

¶13

Religious Endowments,

¶14

Secretariat,

¶15

Chennai – 600 009.

¶16

2.The Commissioner Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶17

Uthamar Gandhi Salai Nungambakkam,

¶18

Chennai – 600 034.

¶19

3.The Joint Commissioner (General) Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶20

Uthamar Gandhi Salai Nungambakkam,

¶21

Chennai – 600 034.

¶22

4.Swamy Govinda Ramanuja Dasa

¶23

(R4 impleaded as per order dated 04.04.2014 by MMSJ in MP.1/14 in

¶24

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

1/5

W.P.No.33655 of 2013

WP.33655 of 2013)

... Respondents

Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for records and quash the order dated 11.09.2013 of the first respondent in his proceedings Letter No.8535/RE 3.1/2013-2 and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Hereditary Religious Dharmakartha of Sri Athikesavaperumal and Sri Bashyakar Swami Devasthnam.

¶31

For Petitioner : Mr.Prahalad Bhat.K.

¶32

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

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of

¶35

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records and quash the order dated 11.09.2013 of the first respondent in proceedings Letter No.8535/RE 3.1/2013-2 and consequently direct the respondents to

¶36

appoint the petitioner as Hereditary Religious Dharmakartha of Sri Athikesavaperumal and Sri Bashyakar Swami Devasthanam.

¶37

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

¶38

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

¶39

2/5

¶40

W.P.No.33655 of 2013

¶41

that the petitioner is the 21^st Madathipathi of Sri Yathiraaja Jeeyar

¶42

Mutt. Sri Athikesavaperumal and Sri Bashyakar Swami Devasthanam in Sriperumbuthur is governed by a Scheme dated 03.01.1923 settled by the Sub-Court, Chengalpet in I.A.No.448 of 1992 in O.S.No.30 of 1921. The petitioner made representation to the respondents seeking to appoint him as the Hereditary Religious Dharmakartha of Sri Athikesavaperumal and Sri Bashyakar Swami Devasthanam in Sriperumbuthur and the said request was rejected by the respondents.

¶43

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader (HR&CE) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the remedy available to the petitioner is before competent civil Court as per the Scheme dated 03.01.1923 settled by the Sub-Court, Chengalpet in I.A.No.448 of 1992 in O.S.No.30 of 1921.

¶44

4.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court may grant liberty to file appropriate petition before the competent civil Court based on the Scheme dated 03.01.1923 settled by the Sub-Court, Chengalpet in I.A.No.448 of 1992 in O.S.No.30 of 1921.

¶45

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

¶46

3/5

¶47

W.P.No.33655 of 2013

¶48

5.In view of the above, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner

¶49

to work out the remedy before the competent civil Court in the manner known to law. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶50

04.09.2024

¶51

pri

¶52

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

¶53

¶54

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Tourism, Cultural & Religious Endowments, Secretariat,

¶55

Chennai – 600 009.

¶56

2.The Commissioner Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶57

Uthamar Gandhi Salai Nungambakkam,

¶58

Chennai – 600 034.

¶59

3.The Joint Commissioner (General) Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶60

Uthamar Gandhi Salai

¶61

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.No.33655 of 2013

¶64

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶65

M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri

¶66

W.P.No.33655 of 2013 And M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶67

04.09.2024

¶68

5/5

¶69

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

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar Vs the Commissioner

S.Thangayammal, Vs The Commissioner

G.Rajmohan Vs The Commissioner