Dismissed

Pugalendhi.R v. The Commissioner

Madras HC3 Jan 2024WP(MD)/13577/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to consider his representation for appointment of a temporary poojari at a temple, without disclosing his relationship with the temple or impleading the hereditary trustee. The court dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner lacked relevance as the hereditary trustee was already permitted to function.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pugalendhi.R Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13577 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13577 of 2023

Pugalendhi.R

... Petitioner

1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Office of the Commissioner, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Office of the Joint Commissioner, Srinivasa Nagar, Tiruvanaikoil, Tiruchirapalli-5.

¶12

3.The Fit Person/executive Officer, A/m.Mathurakaliamman Kovil, Sri Ramasamudhram Village, Thottiam Taluk, Trichy District. Office At.

¶13

A/m.Vaaleeswarar Kovil, Sri Ramasamudhram Village, Thottiam Taluk, Trichy District.

¶14

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

¶15

1/7

¶16

W.P(MD)No.13577 of 2023

¶17

4.P.Sandhanam,,

¶18

S/o.S.N.Periasamy,

¶19

Hereditary Trustee, 5/140, Shree Ramasamudhram Post, Arulmigu Pidari Madurakaliamman and Mariamman Temple, Thottiam Taluk, Trichy. ...Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider the representation dated 12.09.2022 and pass appropriate orders on merits within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.S.I.Muthiah For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.V.Vishnu

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner without even disclosing his relationship

¶24

with the Arulmigu Mathurakaliamman Kovil, Ramasamudhram Village, Thottiam Taluk, Trichy District has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 12.09.2022 and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time.

¶25

2/7

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.13577 of 2023

¶28

2.In his representation, dated 12.09.2022, the petitioner has sought for an appointment of temporary poosari other than the fourth respondent for performing daily poojas at Arulmigu Mathurakaliamman Kovil, Trichy District. The petitioner has made an averment that one Santhanam is a hereditary trustee cum poosari of the above temple. However, the petitioner has not impleaded him as a party to this writ petition. Therefore, this Court by order dated 12.06.2023 has suo motu impleaded the hereditary trustee as a fourth respondent in this writ petition.

¶29

3.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the petitioner has filed this writ petition at the instance of one Nagaraj, who is a suspended hereditary trustee. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner and others are preventing the fourth respondent from performing the poojas in the said temple and therefore, the fourth respondent has filed WP(MD) No. 19226 of 2022 before this Court, seeking police protection and the same was ordered by this Court on 23.08.2022.

¶30

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

¶31

3/7

¶32

W.P(MD)No.13577 of 2023

¶33

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the orders of the Joint Commissioner, dated 21.04.2022 submits that there are serious allegations as against the fourth respondent Santhanam and the said Santhanam though appointed as a hereditary trustee, he has not taken charge for nearly 10 years. However, in the said proceedings, the Joint Commissioner has permitted the fourth respondent to continue as a Poojari. This order, dated 21.04.2022 is challenged by the Joint Commissioner in a revision petition before the Commissioner, HR & CE Department and the same is pending.

¶34

5.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶35

6.The petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 12.09.2022, for an appointment of temporary poosari other than the fourth respondent for performing daily poojas at Arulmigu Mathurakaliamman Kovil, Trichy District and filed this writ petition to direct the respondents to consider his representation. However, the petitioner has not even disclosed his relationship with the said

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7

¶37

W.P(MD)No.13577 of 2023

¶38

temple. Though the petitioner has made an averment that one Santhanam is a hereditary trustee cum poosari of the above temple, he has not impleaded the said Santhanam as a party to this writ petition. Therefore, this Court by order dated 12.06.2023 has impleaded the said Santhanam as a respondent in this writ petition. The learned counsel has relied upon the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, dated 21.04.2022, wherein certain allegations have been made as against the fourth respondent that though he was appointed as a hereditary trustee, he has not taken charge for nearly 10 years. However, the fourth respondent was permitted to function as Poojari cum hereditary trustee considering his explanation therein. In view of the proceedings dated 21.04.2022 that the fourth respondent was already permitted to function as a poojari, this petitioner is not having any relevance to the same. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶39

03.01.2024

¶40

NCC: Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn To

¶41

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

¶42

5/7

¶43

W.P(MD)No.13577 of 2023

¶44

1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Office of the Commissioner, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶45

2.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Office of the Joint Commissioner, Srinivasa Nagar, Tiruvanaikoil, Tiruchirapalli-5.

¶46

3.The Fit Person/executive Officer, A/m.Mathurakaliamman Kovil, Sri Ramasamudhram Village, Thottiam Taluk, Trichy District. Office At. A/m.Vaaleeswarar Kovil, Sri Ramasamudhram Village, Thottiam Taluk, Trichy District.

¶47

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

¶48

6/7

¶49

W.P(MD)No.13577 of 2023

¶50

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶51

vrn

¶52

Order made in W.P(MD)No.13577 of 2023

¶53

03.01.2024

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7

Pugalendhi.R v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pugalendhi.R v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akni Ganesan, Vs the District Collector

S.Sangaiya Vs the District Collector

R.Vijayakumar Vs the Executive Engineer

A. Marichamy Vs the Assistant/

Kadar Musafar Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Pandiaraman Vs The Commissioner