Disposed

Durai Bharathidasan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC21 Oct 2024WP(MD)/24766/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking a mandamus to HR & CE officials to consider representations alleging mismanagement of temple funds by village committee office-bearers. Court directed consideration of the representations with hearing to all stakeholders within eight weeks, without expressing any view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations dated 14.09.2024 and 29.09.2024 on merits, after hearing affected parties, within eight weeks.

Durai Bharathidasan Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.24766 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.24766 of 2024

Durai Bharathidasan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, HR and CE Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Thousand Lights West, Nungambakkam,

¶11

Chennai - 600 034.

¶12

2.The Joint Commissioner, HR and CE Department, H 306 TNHB Colony, Ellis Nagar,

¶13

Madurai – 625 016.

¶14

3.The Assistant Commissioner, HR and CE Department, H 306 TNHB Colony, Ellis Nagar,

¶15

Madurai – 625 016.

¶16

4.Duraikannan

¶17

5.V.Vijayasekar

¶18

6.A.Sasikumar

¶19

7.D.Manoharan

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

1/5

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD).No.24766 of 2024

¶24

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.09.2024.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The present Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.09.2024.

¶28

In view of the limited relief sought for and proposed to be granted by this Court, notice to the respondents 4 to 7 is dispensed with.

¶29

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sri Vinayagaperuman and Arulmigu Sri Kaliamman Temple situated at Keelamuthupatti, Madurai was being managed by a committee selected by the villagers. The respondents 4 to 6 were selected as the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the said Committee respectively. The petitioner was also selected as the Vice President and currently holds the Office of Vice President of the said Committee. It is submitted that there has been mismanagement of the temple funds collected from the general public by respondents 4 to 6. Further,

¶30

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

¶31

2/5

¶32

W.P.(MD).No.24766 of 2024

¶33

respondents 4 to 6 are collecting amounts from the public on the premise that Kumbabishekam is to be conducted on 20.11.2024, but not maintaining any accounts for the same. Hence, the petitioner submitted representations to the official respondents on 14.09.2024 and 29.09.2024 for taking action against the respondents 4 to 6 for the mismanagement and misappropriation committed by them. Since no action was taken, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶34

It was submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner's representations would be considered and orders would be passed in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks, which was accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

In view of the same, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this Writ Petition, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 herein to consider the petitioner's representations dated 14.09 .2024 and 29.09.2024 , on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 7 and any other interested parties/stake holders, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date

¶36

of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

3/5

¶38

W.P.(MD).No.24766 of 2024

¶39

expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the representation on its own

¶40

merits and in accordance with law.

¶41

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There

¶42

shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

21.10.2024

¶44

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm

¶45

¶46

1.The Commissioner, HR and CE Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Thousand Lights West, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

¶47

2.The Joint Commissioner, HR and CE Department, H 306 TNHB Colony, Ellis Nagar, Madurai – 625 016.

¶48

3.The Assistant Commissioner, HR and CE Department, H 306 TNHB Colony, Ellis Nagar, Madurai – 625 016.

¶49

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

¶50

4/5

¶51

W.P.(MD).No.24766 of 2024

¶52

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶53

¶54

W.P.(MD).No.24766 of 2024

¶55

21.10.2024

¶56

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

¶57

5/5

Durai Bharathidasan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durai Bharathidasan 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

Thiagarajan Jayalakshmi Vs The Income Tax Officer

Syed Bawa Kassim .S Vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

M/s.K.R.Estates Builders Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)(Fac)

Malliga Vs The Joint Commissioner

S.Padma Vs The Joint Commissioner

S. Sudhakar Vs The Commissioner