Allowed

S.Selvarani Chairman v. The Commisisoner

Madras HC28 Mar 2025CMP(MD)/4579/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed the petitioner's petition to condone a delay of 568 days in filing a Writ Appeal, conditioning the order on the payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs. Failing compliance, the petition will be dismissed automatically.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 568 days in filing the Writ Appeal on payment of Rs. 3,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee.

S.Selvarani Chairman Vs The Commisisoner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.M.P.(MD)No.4579 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twenty Eighth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Five

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and The HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

C.M.P.(MD)No.4579 of 2024 in W.A.(MD)No.SR 24306 of 2024

¶7

S.SELVARANI CHAIRMAN BOARD OF TRUSTEE, ARULMIGHU MURUGA AYYANAR TEMPLE, VEERAKUDI, THIRUCHUZHI TALUK, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

... PETITIONER(S)

1 THE COMMISISONER

HINDU RELIGOUS AND CHAIRABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI.

¶12

2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER

¶13

HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SIVAGANGAI.

¶14

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶15

HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, VIRUDHUNAGAR.

4 V.RAKKAVELAR

... RESPONDENT(S)

1/3

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

¶20

: For Petitioner(s) Mr.N.Dilipkumar, Advocate

¶21

C.M.P.(MD)No.4579 of 2024

¶22

For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.S.Madhavan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)

¶25

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 568 days in filing the above Writ Appeal.

¶26

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

¶27

3.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent raising serious objection has filed counter affidavit.

¶28

4.However, taking into consideration the crux of the issue involved in the writ appeal and being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 568 days, however, on payment of costs.

¶29

5.Accordingly, this petition is allowed on payment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Bench

¶30

2/3

¶31

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

¶32

C.M.P.(MD)No.4579 of 2024

¶33

forthwith on receipt of a copy of this order, failing which this petition will be

¶34

dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.

sd/28/03/2025

/ TRUE COPY /

/04/2025

Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶39

TA TO

¶40

THE OFFICER INCHARGE, HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶41

ORDER

¶42

IN C.M.P.(MD)No.4579 of 2024 in W.A.(MD)No.SR 24306 of 2024 Date :28/03/2025

¶43

SA/SAR. /07.04.2025/3P/2C

¶44

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023.

¶45

3/3

¶46

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

S.Selvarani Chairman v. The Commisisoner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Selvarani Chairman v. The Commisisoner

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

Senthil Kumar Vs The Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning

Seyad Fathima Vs The District Collector cum Monitoring Committee

K.S.Ravi Vs The Executive engineer

P.Radha Krishnan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Ka.Ashok Kumar Vs The Joint Commissioner

P. Pandian Vs The District Collector (Monitoring Committee)