Disposed

Arulmigu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC13 Mar 2024WP(MD)/6117/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hereditary trustee sought mandamus to sanction his application for conducting Kumbhabishekam at Arulmigu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple. The Expert Committee had recommended the consecration; Regional Level and State Level Committee approvals were pending. The Court disposed of the petition directing concurrence within one month and State Level Committee clearance within two months thereafter.

What the court decided

AI extract

Arulmigu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple Vs The Joint… — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.6117 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.6117 of 2024

¶7

Arulmigu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple, Rep. by its Hereditary Trustee, V.Subramanian, S/o.Valliyappa Chettiar, Konapet, Tirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District. ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Thanjavur.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Pudukkottai. ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to accord sanction for Kumbabisegam application dated 19.12.2023 in respect of the petitioner's temple within the time stipulated fixed by this Court.

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.P(MD)No.6117 of 2024

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.P.Subba Raj, Special Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner claims that he is the Hereditary Trustee of Arulmighu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple, Konapet, Tirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District. He has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction his application dated 19.12.2023 for conducting Kumbhabishekam in the Temple.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the consecration for this Temple was conducted 15 years back and thereafter, the consecration was not conducted. Now, the Trustees of the Temple have decided to conduct Kumbhabhishekham and have also got a report from the Experts on the feasibility of conducting Kumbhabishekam. The Nagarathars of Pillayarpatti clan have also sponsored Rs.25,00,000/- for renovation of the Temple. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted an application to the respondents seeking permission for conducting Kumbhabhishekham

¶19

2/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)No.6117 of 2024

¶22

and for preliminary poojas. Since there was no communication from the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶23

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

¶24

notice for the respondents and submits that for conducting Kumbhabhishekham, the Department has sought for a report from Expert Committee consisting of Archeological Experts. They have submitted their report on 14.02.2024 and also recommended for Kumbhabhishekham. He further submits that the recommendation of the Committee would be placed before the Regional Level Committee and a report of the Regional Level Committee would be placed before the State Level Committee and thereafter, necessary orders would be passed in a short span of time.

¶25

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶26

Admittedly, the Kumbhabhishekham was conducted 15 years back. The Trustees themselves have made arrangements and

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.6117 of 2024

¶30

made an application on 15.12.2023. It appears that the Expert Committee consisting of Archeological Experts have also given consent for conducting Kumbabhisekham by their report dated 14.02.2024, which needs to be approved by the Regional Level Committee and State Level Committee.

¶31

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent/Joint Commissioner of HR&CE Department to get concurrence from the Regional Level Committee within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, place the same before the State Level Committee without any further delay and ensure that the State Level Committee is also clearing this project within a span of two months from thereon. No costs.

¶32

13.03.2024

¶33

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

¶34

4/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.6117 of 2024

¶37

¶38

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Thanjavur.

¶39

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Pudukkottai.

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.6117 of 2024

¶42

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶43

ogy

¶44

W.P(MD)No.6117 of 2024

¶45

13.03.2024

¶46

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

Arulmigu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Arulmigu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eriyur Village Panchayat Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Mohamed Ali Jinnah.a Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Ibrahim Sha Vs The Chief Executive Officer

S.Ibrahim Oli Vs The Managing Director

P Ramkumar Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

S.Shankar Vs The Joint Commissioner