Allowed

T.Venkatesan v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC22 Oct 2024WP(MD)/23251/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, claiming rights as Poosari of Arulmigu Alamelu Mangai Ammal Temple, filed a writ seeking mandamus to prevent interference. Court directed the Joint Commissioner to number the pending original application and dispose of it within four months, maintaining status quo in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Joint Commissioner to number the pending original application and dispose of it within four months; status quo maintained.

T.Venkatesan Vs The Joint Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.23251 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.23251 of 2024

T.Venkatesan ...

Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sri Nachiyar (Andal) Temple, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the 2nd respondent from interfering with the petitioner's legitimate rights as poosari of Arulmigu Alamelu Mangai Ammal Temple Thiruvannamalai, Srivilliputhur, Viruthunagar District, on the basis of the order, dated 10.04.1987, made in OA No.17/1985 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.23251 of 2024

¶16

Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai, (at present The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai).

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh

¶18

For Respondent 1 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, Addl.Govt.Pleader.

¶19

For Respondent 2 : Mr.P.Mahendran

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the 2nd respondent from interfering with the petitioner's rights as Poosari of Arulmigu Alamelu Mangai Ammal Temple Thiruvannamalai, Srivilliputhur, Viruthunagar District.

¶22

After submitting for a brief while, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Original Application under Section 63 (e) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act has been filed before the first respondent - Joint Commissioner for recognising the petitioner's rights and though the Original Application has been filed, it is yet to be numbered.

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.23251 of 2024

¶26

It is further submitted, that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner has been performing his duty as Poosari eversince the demise of his father sometime in the year 1993.

¶27

Learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the first respondent, would submit that the remedy available to the petitioner is only to pursue the Original Application, which has been filed before the Joint Commissioner.

¶28

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to direct the first respondent – Joint Commissioner to number the Original Application, if it is otherwise in order, and dispose of the same on merit and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and all other interested parties, within a period of four months. Until then, status quo shall be maintained by the parties.

¶29

Learned counsel for the second respondent would request that the second respondent may also be made a party before the Joint Commissioner, to which, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent has already been arrayed as a party in the Original Application filed by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner.

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.23251 of 2024

¶33

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶34

Consequently, the connected W.M.P.(MD) No.19694 of 2024 is closed.

¶35

22.10.2024

¶36

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶37

dixit

¶38

To:

¶39

1.The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.

¶40

2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sri Nachiyar (Andal) Temple, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

¶41

_____________ Page 4 of 5_

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.23251 of 2024

¶44

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶45

dixit

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.23251 of 2024

¶47

22.10.2024

¶48

Page 5 of 5

¶49

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

T.Venkatesan v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Venkatesan v. The Joint 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

Malliga Vs The Joint Commissioner

Durai Bharathidasan Vs The Commissioner

S.Padma Vs The Joint Commissioner

Karuppiah @ Ilayaraja Vs The Commissioner

Babu Khan Mohammed Sha Pannadi Bee Dargha Vs The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

S.John Santhiyagu Vs The Managing Director