Disposed

Palanichamy.v v. The Commissioner

Madras HC9 Feb 2024WP(MD)/2803/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against a notice to appoint non-hereditary trustees for a denominational temple. Court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit representation to the Joint Commissioner within two weeks for the appointment of trustees based on a prior decree.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit representation to Joint Commissioner; connected petitions closed.

Palanichamy.v Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.2803 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2803 of 2024 and WMP(MD) Nos.2801 & 2804 of 2024

Palanichamy.V

... Petitioner

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Nungambakkam,

¶11

Chennai - 34.

¶12

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Dindigul.

¶13

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, O/o.the HR and CE, Dindigul.

¶14

4.The Inspector, HR and CE Department, Dindigul West, Dindigul. ...Respondents

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P(MD)No.2803 of 2024

¶18

PRAYER:

¶19

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, pertaining to the impugned notice vide Na.Ka.No. 771/2023-37/A2, dated 18.12.2023, issued by this 3rd respondent, as not valid and quash the same and thereby, directing the respondents not to go against the rights of the Pillaimar and Yadava Community people of Sennamanaickenpatti Village with respect to the Vinayagar temple situated in S.No.809 in the same Village (Chettinaickenpatti Revenue Village).

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.F.X.Eugene For Respondents : Mr.P.Subba Raj Special Government Pleader

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

As against the notification issued by the third respondent, dated 18.12.2023, calling for applications for appointment of non-hereditary trustees for the Vinayagar temple situated in Chettinaickenpatti Revenue Village, this writ petition is filed.

¶23

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P(MD)No.2803 of 2024

¶25

2.The petitioner claims that the subject temple is a

¶26

denominational temple belong to two community people. However, the respondents are attempting to appoint non-hereditary trustees for the administration of the temple. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.366 of 2006 by the District Munsif Court, Dindigul and submits that the right of the petitioner has already been confirmed. Despite the same, the respondents are

¶28

now treating the temple as a public temple and also attempting to appoint non-hereditary trustees.

¶29

4.Mr.P.Subba Raj, learned Special Government Pleader

¶30

takes notice for the respondents and submits that they are not proceeding with the notice as on date. If the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to the appointment of hereditary trustees, he can make his submission before the Joint Commissioner.

¶31

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P(MD)No.2803 of 2024

¶33

5.Considering the rival submissions made, this writ

¶34

petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to submit his representation to the Joint commissioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.366 of 2006. The Joint Commissioner shall take a decision on the petitioner's representation as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶35

09.02.2024

¶36

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

¶37

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P(MD)No.2803 of 2024

¶39

¶40

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.

¶41

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Dindigul.

¶42

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, O/o.the HR and CE, Dindigul.

¶43

4.The Inspector, HR and CE Department, Dindigul West, Dindigul.

¶44

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P(MD)No.2803 of 2024

¶46

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶47

vrn

¶48

Order made in W.P(MD)No.2803 of 2024 and WMP(MD) Nos.2801 & 2804 of 2024

¶49

09.02.2024

¶50

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Palanichamy.v v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanichamy.v v. The 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

Ibrahim Oli Vs The District Collector

Chinnappa.N Vs The Registering Authority

M/s.Statco Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Abdul Raja Mohammed Vs Senthamarai

Mohamed Ibrahim.S.K Vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

Arulmighu Kattu Karuppannasamy Temple Vs The Joint Commissioner (Hr and Ce)