Disposed

Vairamuthu Chettiyar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC13 Aug 2024WP(MD)/7681/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the Second Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 11.03.2024 regarding the removal of a name flux board and cameras at a family temple, and to pass appropriate orders after affording a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Second Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation on merits and pass appropriate orders within four weeks after affording a personal hearing.

Vairamuthu Chettiyar Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.7681 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 13.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P(MD)No.7681 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.7027 of 2024

Vairamuthu Chettiyar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 0034.

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department,

¶12

Trippur.

¶13

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department

¶14

Karur, Karur District.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

W.P(MD)No.7681 of 2024

¶18

4.The Executive Officer, (Arulmigu Pambalamman Temple, Jayamkondan) Lakshmanampatti, Old Jayamkondan Post, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District -639 102.

¶19

...Respondents

¶20

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the Name Flux Board and Cameras erected by them at the petitioner's family temple of “Arulmigu Pambalamman Thirukovil” situated in their patta land of bearing S.No.1172/1B, patta No.954 at Mahathanapuram South Revenue Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For R1toR3 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, Addl. Government Pleader For R4 : No appearance

¶22

ORDER

¶23

A representation has been filed by the petitioner requesting

¶24

the respondents to remove the Name Flux Board and Cameras erected by them at the petitioner's family temple of “Arulmigu Pambalamman Thirukovil” situated in their patta land of bearing

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.7681 of 2024

¶28

S.No.1172/1B, patta No.954 at Mahathanapuram South Revenue Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District.

¶29

2.The case of the petitioner is that property in S.No. 1172/1B, patta No.954, situated at Mahathanapuram South Revenue Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District, belongs to the petitioner's family, wherein a small Preedam-Temple called “Arulmigu Pambalamman Thirukovil”. The respondents 1 to 4 have trespassed into the aforesaid land and put up Hundial, Gate, Small Room and Compound Wall and conducting temple festival. The writ petitions in W.P(MD)No.18428 of 2021 and W.P(MD)No.10792 of 2022 were filed before this Court and the same are pending. Even though the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner's family, the respondents have put up name flux board, camera and are taking steps to conduct the religious function. Therefore, a representation dated 11.03.2024 was submitted to the respondents through registered post. Since no action has been taken, the present writ petition is filed.

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No.7681 of 2024

¶33

3 .When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1to 3 would submit that the representation of the petitioner would be considered and orders would be passed by the second respondent thereon in accordance with law, acceded to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

In view of the same and 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 second respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.03.2024 , on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and it is open to the concerned respondent to

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

W.P(MD)No.7681 of 2024

¶38

consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance

¶39

with law.

¶40

13.08.2024

¶41

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ns To

¶42

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 0034. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, Trippur. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department Karur, Karur District.

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

W.P(MD)No.7681 of 2024

¶46

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶47

¶48

W.P(MD)No.7681 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.7027 of 2024

¶49

13.08.2024

¶50

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

¶51

Vairamuthu Chettiyar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vairamuthu Chettiyar 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

Vijayakumar Vs The Transport Commissioner

G.Fasel Basha Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Tvl Ohm Namasivaya Papers And Boards Vs The State Tax Officer

Tvl P Karuppaiah Vs The State Tax Officer

Tvl P Karuppaiah Vs The State Tax Officer

Subramanian Vs Income Tax Department