Disposed

Manivannan .S v. The Commissioner

Madras HC3 Oct 2024WP(MD)/20369/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the notification appointing non-hereditary trustees for a temple. The petition was closed as infructuous after the Government issued a fresh order appointing two non-hereditary trustees, with liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge that subsequent order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed as infructuous; liberty granted to challenge subsequent order dated 24.09.2024.

Manivannan .S Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.20369 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.20369 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD).Nos.17276 and 17277 of 2024

S.Manivannan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable

¶13

Endowment Board,

¶14

No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Street,

¶15

Nungambakkam,

¶16

Chennai - 600 034.

¶17

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶18

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board,

¶19

No.60, Muthusamy Nagar, Sivagangai - 630 561.

¶20

3.The Fit Person / the Assistant Commissioner, Arulmighu Koppudaiya Nayagi Amman Temple, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶21

4.The Executive Officer,

¶22

Arulmighu Koppudaiya Nayagi Amman Temple, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶23

5.S.Meiyar ...Respondents

¶24

(R-5 is impleaded vide Court order dated 29.08.2024 in W.M.P.(MD).No.17544 of 2024 in W.P.(MD).No.20369 of 2024)

¶25

1/4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD).No.20369 of 2024

¶28

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned notification issued by the 2^nd respondent herein vide proceedings in tp.nt.vz;.63/2024/nr.k.njh.m/rptfq;if/ehs; 05.06.2024 published in Dhinakaran Daily Newspaper Sivagangai Edition on 06.06.2024 (calling for application to appoint Non-Hereditary Trustee of Arulmighu Koppudaiya Nayagi Amman Temple, Karaikudi) and quash the same as illegal and against the scheme framed in A.S.Nos.116 and 117 of 1956 on the file of this Court and further direct the 2^nd respondent herein to issue fresh notification in accordance with the scheme.

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for Mr.S.Rajesh Kanna For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader For R-4 : Mr.V.Chandrasekar For R-5 : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for

¶32

the petitioner would submit that the Writ Petition has become infructuous in view of the order passed by the Government in G.O.No.259, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 24.09.2024, whereby, two non-hereditary trustees were appointed for the subject temple. It was thus

¶33

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

¶34

2/4

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.20369 of 2024

¶36

submitted that the Writ Petition may be closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 24.09.2024.

¶37

Recording the same, the Writ Petition is closed as infructuous. Liberty

¶38

is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 24.09.2024 in the manner known to law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

03.10.2024

¶40

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm

¶41

¶42

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

¶43

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, No.60, Muthusamy Nagar, Sivagangai - 630 561.

¶44

3/4

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD).No.20369 of 2024

¶47

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶48

¶49

W.P.(MD).No.20369 of 2024

¶50

03.10.2024

¶51

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

Manivannan .S v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manivannan .S 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

Sankar.v Vs The Commissioner

Sivasingh Vs The Joint Commissioner

M/s. Bharath Biologicals Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise

S.Saritha Vs The Commissioner

Shanthi. S Vs The Commissioner

N.Sundarajan Vs The Commissioner