Disposed

K.Rajendran v. The Commissioner

Madras HC12 Aug 2024WP(MD)/19289/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning conduct of a temple festival by Kattalaidharargal and Mandagapaditharargal per centuries-old custom, challenging posters naming Ubayatharar. Court directed HR&CE officials to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within six weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2024 on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks.

K.Rajendran Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.19289 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.19289 of 2024

¶7

K.Rajendran ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, 119, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶10

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Shanmugapuram, Valliyur Road, North Valliyur, Tirunelveli – 627 117.

¶12

4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramania Swami Thirukovil Valliyur, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the fourth respondent and other Temple Committee members and to direct the fourth respondent and other Temple Committee members to cancel

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.19289 of 2024

¶17

the notice which was printed by them and to print the temple invitation as Kattalaidharargal and Mandagapaditharargal for conducting the temple festival as per the customary rites that was being followed for centuries by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 26.07.2024.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Maruthu Pandian

¶19

For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan Additional Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed praying for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the fourth respondent and other Temple Committee members and to direct the fourth respondent and other Temple Committee members to cancel the notice which was printed by them

¶22

and to print the temple invitation as Kattalaidharargal and Mandagapaditharargal for conducting the temple festival as per the customary practise followed for centuries by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 26.07.2024.

¶23

2. The facts of the case are that the temple festival is scheduled in the month of September, 2024 in the temple namely, Arulmigu Subramania Swami Thirukovil situated at Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. The festival will be

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.19289 of 2024

¶27

conducted by the Kattalaitharargal and Mandagapaditharargal. At this juncture,

¶28

the fourth respondent and other Temple committee members without any prior notice is stated to have decided to conduct the Thirukatalaigal as Ubayatharar function and had affixed wall posters near the said temple. In this regard, the Petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents on 26.07.2024 requesting them to take action against the fourth respondent. Further a direction was sought against the fourth respondent and temple committee members to cancel the notice which was printed by them and to print the new invitation as Kattalaidharargal and Mandagapaditharargal for conducting the temple festival as per the customary practise followed for centuries. Since no action was taken on the petitioner's representation, the present petition is filed.

¶29

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner would be considered and orders would be passed thereon in accordance with law.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.19289 of 2024

¶33

4. In view of the same and taking into consideration the facts and

¶34

circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this Writ Petition, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and it is

¶35

open to the concerned respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶36

5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶37

12.08.2024

¶38

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.19289 of 2024

¶42

To:

¶43

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, 119, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶44

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tirunelveli District.

¶45

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Shanmugapuram, Valliyur Road, North Valliyur, Tirunelveli – 627 117.

¶46

4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramania Swami Thirukovil Valliyur, Tirunelveli District.

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.19289 of 2024

¶50

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶51

Nsr

¶52

W.P.(MD)No.19289 of 2024

¶53

12.08.2024

¶54

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

¶55

6/6

K.Rajendran v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rajendran 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

Chandran Vs The Joint Commissioner

P.Muthukumar Vs The Joint Commissioner

Faisalkhan Samoji M Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Vijayakumar Vs The Transport Commissioner

G.Fasel Basha Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Tvl Ohm Namasivaya Papers And Boards Vs The State Tax Officer