Disposed

A.E.Jeyabalan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC21 Nov 2024WP/34136/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking direction to the Commissioner, HR&CE, to consider the petitioners' representation regarding temple management and accounts. Court directed the Commissioner to forward the representation to the Assistant Commissioner for further action within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to forward petitioners' representation to jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner within two weeks; Assistant Commissioner to issue notice and pass orders within twelve weeks

A.E.Jeyabalan Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.34136 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :21.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P No.34136 of 2024

¶7

A.E.Jeyabalan

¶8

2.M.Govindaraj 3. V.M.Kuppaiah

¶9

4.S.Hariharan

5.M.Mohan

...Petitioners

Vs.

The Commissioner

¶14

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 034.

¶15

P.Anandan

¶16

S.Ashok Kumar

¶17

.Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 18.09.2024 and to take appropriate action to remove the respondents 2 and 3 from the temple management and handover the key to the petitioners.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Perumal For Respondent 1 : Mr. K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate (HR & CE)

¶20

1/4

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.34136 of 2024

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioners herein seek a direction to 1^st respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 18.09.2024 and take appropriate action for removal of respondents 2 and 3 from the management of the temple namely Sri Arulmigu Vinnai Theetha Vinayagar situatted at No.22, Sasthiri Nagar Extension, Ponniyamman Medu, Chennai-600 110.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioners that at present, the above said temple is under the management of the private respondents and according to the petitioners, the accounts of the temple have not been maintained for the past 7 years properly. Therefore, the petitioners made a representation before the 1^st respondent seeking necessary action against the private respondents and the same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioners have come before this Court.

¶26

Mr. K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate (HR & CE) takes notice for the 1^st respondent submits that the representation submitted by the petitioners will be considered in accordance with law.

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.34136 of 2024

¶30

In view of the same, without going into the merits of the claim made

¶31

by the petitioners, the 1^st respondent is directed to forward the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 18.09.2024 to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner shall issue notice to the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 and pass necessary orders on merits within a further period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of representation.

¶32

With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶33

costs.

¶34

21.11.2024

¶35

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No nr

¶36

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶37

3/4

¶38

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

W.P.No.34136 of 2024

To The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 034.

¶43

W.P No.34136 of 2024

¶44

21.11.2024

¶45

4/4

¶46

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

A.E.Jeyabalan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.E.Jeyabalan 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

K.v.Chalapathy Vs Principal Secretary/

C.Periyasamy Vs Adjudicating Authority

C.Thoppalan Vs The Executive Engineer

K.R.Duraisamy Vs the Commissioner of Revenue Administration

Arun Vs the Regional Passport Officer

K.Parvathi Vs the District Collector