Disposed

Vupputur Ramesh, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC27 Nov 2024WP/3832/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Department, to consider his representation from 2016 regarding the administrative control of a religious trust. The High Court directed the Joint Commissioner (2nd respondent) to consider the representation and pass orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2016 and pass final orders within twelve weeks.

Vupputur Ramesh, Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.3832 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.3832 of 2018

Vupputur Ramesh

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.600034.

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶12

H.R. & C.E.

¶13

Tiruchirappalli.

¶14

3.The Executive Officer, Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Sri Rangam, Trichirappalli.

¶15

4.Sri Vuppur Alwar Chetty'sCharities, representedby its President, Thatha Sampath Kumar.

¶16

5.Swaroop

¶17

6.Thatha Sampath Kumar

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

W.P.No.3832 of 2018

7.Sethu Raman

8.C.Vivekanandan

9.A.Balasubramaniyam

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent 1 to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2016 and bring the 3 rd respondent trust under the control of the 1 st Respondent.

¶26

For Petitioner : No Appearance For R1 and R2 : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.R.Bharanidharan For R5 : No Appearance For R4, R6 to R9 : Notice Returned

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider

¶29

the representation of the petitioner dated 17.08.2016 and pass final orders to

¶30

bring the 4^th respondent-Trust under the administrative control of the 1^st respondent.

¶31

2/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.3832 of 2018

¶34

It is the case of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent/Trust was formed by one Alwar Chettiyar for performance of various religious charities in the Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Sri Rangam. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as per the terms of the Trust Deed, the 4^th respondentTrust is a Public Religious Charitable Trust and the affairs of the Trust are not carried out in accordance with the object of the Trust by the existing Trustees. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents on 17.08.2016 seeking necessary order from the 1^st respondent to bring the 4^th respondent-Trust within the administrative control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The said representation has not been considered till date. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶35

When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶36

Heard the submission of Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special

¶37

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.3832 of 2018

¶41

Though the 5^th respondent is served and his name is also printed in

¶42

the cause-list, there is no representation for the 5^th respondent. Notice sent to the respondents 4, 6 to 9 are returned 'unserved'. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 4, 6 to 9, non-service of notice on respondents 4, 6 to 9 may not be an impediment for the disposal of the writ petition.

¶43

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider his representation dated 17.08.2016 and pass orders.

¶44

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

¶45

respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the Competent Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner is the 2^nd respondent herein and the said Authority will consider it and pass final orders in accordance with law.

¶46

In view of the same, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.08.2016 and pass final orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.3832 of 2018

¶50

twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 9.

¶51

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶52

costs.

¶53

27.11.2024

¶54

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No dm

¶55

¶56

1.The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.600034.

¶57

2.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Tiruchirappalli.

¶58

3.The Executive Officer, Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Sri Rangam, Trichirappalli.

¶59

5/6

¶60

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

W.P.No.3832 of 2018

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.3832 of 2018

¶65

27.11.2024

¶66

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

¶67

6/6

Vupputur Ramesh, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vupputur Ramesh, 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

M.Settu Vs the Superintending Engineer

A.Venkatesan Vs the Commissioner

Jayanthi Pai Vs the Commissioners

M/S.Sri Ponguru Magnesite Mines, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Shanmugam Vs the District Collector

R.Suresh Kumar Vs the Tahsildar