Dismissed

Gnanavel .K v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC3 Apr 2024WP(MD)/8419/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE to grant permission for renovation and Kumbabhishekam at a temple. The court held that the prayer cannot be entertained due to pending original application between temple petitioners. It directed the second respondent to complete O.A. No. 54 of 2022 within four months. Liberty granted to file fresh representation post

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.8419 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.8419 of 2024

K.Gnanavel

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶11

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul District.

¶12

2.The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police,

¶15

F1, Peraiyur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶16

5.A.Palanichamy

¶17

6.M.Muthu Karuppaiah ... Respondents

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.8419 of 2024

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent herein to grant permission to conduct Renovation work and to conduct Kumbabhishekam schedule to be held on 16.06.2024 and 17.06.2024 at Sri Kannapuram Kaliamman Temple, Kumarapuram Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District on the basis of the petitioner representation dated 27.02.2024 and 21.03.2024.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Sriranganathan

¶23

For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

¶24

For R3 & R4 : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate

¶25

For R5 & R6 : Mr.J.Barathan

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has filed these writ petitions for a Mandamus to direct the

¶28

first respondent to grant the permission to conduct the renovation work and to conduct Kumbabhishekam on 16.06.2024 and 17.06.2024 at Sri Kannapuram Kaliamman Temple at Kumarapuram Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District on the basis of the petitioner's representations dated 27.02.2024 and 21.03.2024.

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.8419 of 2024

¶32

2.Heard Mr.I.Sriranganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.S.Manikandan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 3 and 4 and Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6.

¶33

3.It is informed by all the learned counsels that O.A.No.54 of 2022 filed under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, is pending before the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the evidence of the respondents 5 and 6, who are the petitioners in O.A.No.54 of 2022, is complete and now, it is the petitioner's turn to depose the evidence.

¶34

4.The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there is no question of Kumbabishegam being conducted as renovation work is not over. That apart, it is further submitted that O.A.No.54 of 2022 is pending at the behest of the respondents 5 and 6 before the first respondent herein and therefore, on this count also, without determination, the Kumbabishegam cannot be conducted.

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.8419 of 2024

¶38

5.The learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 would submit that the Court may direct the first respondent to dispose of O.A.No.54 of 2022 as was ordered by this Court earlier in W.P.(MD) No.8134 of 2023 filed by the respondents 5 and 6 vide order dated 12.04.2023.

¶39

6.Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 3 and 4 and the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6, this Court is of the view that the prayer sought for by the petitioner at this stage cannot be entertained. At the same time, there can be a positive direction to the second respondent to complete the proceedings in O.A.No.54 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file fresh representation for Kumbabishegam after the order is passed in O.A.No.54 of 2022.

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.8419 of 2024

¶43

7.The Writ Petition stands disposed of with such liberty. No costs.

¶44

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mm To

¶45

03.04.2024

¶46

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul District.

¶47

2.The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶48

3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, F1, Peraiyur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶49

5/6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD) No.8419 of 2024

¶52

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶53

¶54

W.P.(MD) No.8419 of 2024

¶55

03.04.2024

¶56

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

¶57

6/6

Gnanavel .K v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gnanavel .K 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

Pl.Vairam Vs the Commissioner of Income TAX-1

A.Kanagaraj Vs The Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Rajasekaran .C Vs State rep. by its Inspector of Police

Sri Rajathi Enterprises Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Anandh @ Anandha Perumal Vs The Commissioner

Tvl. 0 1919 Tenkasi Shencottai Taluk Agricultural Co. Op Society Vs The State Tax Officer