Dismissed

Radhakrishnan .a v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC5 Apr 2024WP(MD)/8682/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order holding the writ petition infructuous as the petitioner's representation was addressed and survey work progressed. Directed IG Police to protect officials completing the survey within three months. Petition disposed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed 10th respondent to instruct DPSP, Tiruvidaimaruthur to protect officials for survey completion within three months. Petition disposed.

Radhakrishnan .a Vs The Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.8682 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.8682 of 2024

A.Radhakrishnan

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department, Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai 600 009.

¶12

2.The Commissioner,

¶13

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Nungambakkam High Road,

¶14

Chennai 600 034.

¶15

3.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk,

¶16

Chennai 600 005.

¶17

4.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶18

5.The Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶19

1/7

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD) No.8682 of 2024

¶22

6.The Director of Rural and Development Department, Saidapet, Chennai 15. 7.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. 8.The District Collector, Tanjore. 9.The Distric Revenue Officer, Tanjore. 10.The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Tiruchirapalli. 11.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tanjore.

¶23

12.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tanjore. 13.The Chairman Board of Trustee/Fir Person, Arulmigu Pasupatheeswarar Temple, Panthanallur, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Tanjore District. 14.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Pasupatheeswarar Temple, Panthanallur, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Tanjore District. ... Respondents 2/7

¶24

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

¶25

PRAYER:

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.8682 of 2024

¶27

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 12 to secure and safeguard the 14^th respondent temple by considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.09.2020.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.Radhakrishnan (party-in-person) For R1 to R9, R11 & R12 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R10 : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶29

For R13 & R14 : Mr.V.Chandrasekar Standing Counsel

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 12 to secure and safeguard the 14^th respondent temple by considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.09.2020.

¶32

2.Al though this writ petition has been filed more in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, it is noticed that the respondents have already taken steps pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 07.09.2020.

¶33

3/7

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.8682 of 2024

¶36

3.Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the HR & CE Department and Mr.V.Chandrasekar, learned Standing Counsel for the temple are present before this Court today.

¶37

4.Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 9, 11 and 12 would submit that the petitioner's representation has already been addressed to the concerned Official and the work is in progress. It is further submitted that almost 83 acres of land has been surveyed. It is submitted that only remaining 14% of land is to be surveyed, which is also under progress.

¶38

5.Considering the same, I find that the writ petition has become infructuous. At the same time, I direct the 10^th respondent to give suitable instructions to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur, to give full protection to the Officials of the HR & CE Department to complete the survey and take suitable steps in accordance with law. It is expected that the entire exercise will be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

4/7

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.8682 of 2024

¶42

6.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶43

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mm

¶44

05.04.2024

¶45

Note : Registry is directed to issue order copy to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur for providing suitable protection and reinforcement.

¶46

¶47

1.The Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶48

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034.

¶49

3.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶50

4.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶51

5/7

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.8682 of 2024

¶54

5.The Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶55

6.The Director of Rural and Development Department, Saidapet, Chennai 15.

¶56

7.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.

¶57

8.The District Collector, Tanjore.

¶58

9.The Distric Revenue Officer, Tanjore.

¶59

10.The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Tiruchirapalli.

¶60

11.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tanjore.

¶61

12.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tanjore.

¶62

6/7

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.(MD) No.8682 of 2024

¶65

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶66

¶67

W.P.(MD) No.8682 of 2024

¶68

05.04.2024

¶69

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

¶70

7/7

Radhakrishnan .a v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan .a v. The Secretary to Government

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

Chandrasekar.M Vs the Joint Commissioner

M/S.Radhikka Ceramic World Vs the State Tax Officer

L Charli Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner of GST Appeal

Saminathan.P Vs The Commissioner

Jothibasu.K Vs The Commissioner

Rajaram Vs The Regional Transport Officer