Dismissed

Ayyadurai .K v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC16 Feb 2024WP(MD)/23057/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Fit Person's permission to a devotee to construct a compound wall. The Court held the petition liable to be dismissed with a warning, noting the petitioner could fulfill temple requirements from the mandated list instead.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with a warning; no costs awarded.

Ayyadurai .K Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD)No.23057 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 16.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.23057 of 2023 and WMP(MD)Nos.19251,20110 and 21112 of 2023

K.Ayyadurai

... Petitioner

1.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶11

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶12

Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

2.The Executive Officer / Thakkar, Arulmigu Kanni Vniyakar Thirukovil etc., Vadiveeswaram, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

3.Arulmigu Narayanasamy Thirukovil, Thenthamarikulam, represented by Fit Person, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

4.R Soundara Raja Pandian ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the files of the 2^nd respondent pertaining to its

¶17

1/7

¶18

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

¶19

WP(MD)No.23057 of 2023

¶20

proceedings bearing No.Nil dated 24.08.2023 and to quash the same.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.SC.Herold Singh For Respondent : Mr.S.Kameswaran No.1 Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.H.Arumugam Nos.2 and 3 For Respondent :Mr.T.Pooventhera Rajan No.4

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is a devotee of Arulmigu

¶24

Narayanasamy Thirukovil, established in the line of Iyya Narayana Samy as Iyya Vazhi. The petitioner

¶25

claims that he is the Secretary of the Administrative Committee and he had the term upto November 2023. He has filed this writ petition as against the order of the 2^nd respondent / the Fit Person permitting the 4^th respondent to put up certain construction in the 3^rd respondent temple.

¶26

2.The learned Counsel for petitioner submits

¶27

that the 2^nd respondent is not having any authority to permit the 4^th respondent to put up the construction 2/7

¶28

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

¶29

WP(MD)No.23057 of 2023

¶30

and it is also permitted without consultation of the

¶31

villagers and the administrative committee. The petitioner / the erstwhile Secretary, on behalf of the villagers has submitted a representation to the respondents on 11.09.2023 expressing the

¶32

grievances of the villagers, but the same was not considered. Therefore the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶33

3.The learned Counsel further submits that the

¶34

appointment of the Fit Person was challenged by one Chelladurai and the same is now pending before the Commissioner in RP.No.1 of 2008 and this petitioner is prosecuting the same. When the appointment of the Fit Person is in dispute, it is not proper on the part of the Fit Person to permit the 4^th respondent to

¶35

put up the construction that too without any consultation with the villagers.

¶36

4.The learned Counsel for the 4^th respondent

¶37

submits that the 4^th respondent is a devotee of the temple. There is no compound wall around the temple 3/7

¶38

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

¶39

WP(MD)No.23057 of 2023

¶40

and therefore it is used as a dumping yard by the

¶41

general public. In order to protect the temple from being affected by such acts, the 4^th respondent thought of constructing a compound wall around the temple. As such he has sought permission of the Fit Person and accordingly permission was granted. Further the 4^th respondent is not having any grievance to allow the petitioner to put up the construction. He has also filed an affidavit that he will not claim

¶42

any right or privilege in the temple or in the administration of the temple by permitting him to put up the construction.

¶43

5.The learned Special Government Pleader

¶44

appearing for the 1^st respondent submits that the Fit Person was appointed in the year 2008, which was

¶45

challenged by one Chelladurai in WP(MD)No.2304 of 2008 and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same

¶46

WA(MD)No.520 of 2008 was filed and it was also dismissed. Even then an application RP.No.1 of 2008 was filed before the Commissioner and the same is pending and there is no interim order.

¶47

4/7

¶48

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

¶49

WP(MD)No.23057 of 2023

¶50

6.This Court considered the rival submissions

¶51

made and perused the materials placed on record.

¶52

7.The 4^th respondent as a devotee of the temple

¶53

has volunteered himself to construct a compound wall in order to prevent the temple premises from being misused. There is no reason to interfere with the permission granted by the Fit Person.

¶54

The 2^nd respondent has given the list of requirements for the temple. If the petitioner is really having concern for the welfare of the temple, it is open for him to fulfil any of the requirements for the temple from the list given by the 2^nd respondent with necessary permission. It is made clear this Court has not compelled the petitioner to do so.

¶55

8.In the result, this Court is of the opinion

¶56

that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. However this writ petition is dismissed with a warning. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.

¶57

16.02.2024

¶58

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

¶59

5/7

¶60

WP(MD)No.23057 of 2023

¶61

¶62

1.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶63

Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶64

2.The Executive Officer / Thakkar, Arulmigu Kanni Vniyakar Thirukovil etc., Vadiveeswaram, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶65

3.The Executive Officer / Fit Person,

¶66

Arulmigu Narayanasamy Thirukovil, Thenthamarikulam, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶67

6/7

¶68

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

¶69

WP(MD)No.23057 of 2023

¶70

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶71

dsk

¶72

WP(MD)No.23057 of 2023

¶73

16.02.2024

¶74

7/7

¶75

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

Ayyadurai .K v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyadurai .K v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirupathi M Vs The District Collector

Lakshmanna Chettiar Vs The Commissioner

Kanagaraj. v Vs The Regional Transport Officer

Chandra Vs Deivanayagi

Alagarsamy Vs The Commissioner

A. Vairamuthu Vs Singaravel