Disposed¶38

Ramani @Mohanambal v. the Commissioner

Madras HC4 Apr 2025WP/12227/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; writ of mandamus; Article 226; HR&CE Department/Board officials; hereditary trustee; temple renovation; Kudamuzhuku; Thakkar/Fit Person; revision petition R.P.No. 3 of 2024 pending; time-bound direction to pass final orders within three weeks; web copy without certified copy; Joint Commissioner HR&CE Board Chennai; miscellaneous petition closed; no costs; petitioner Ramani @ Mohanambal; Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy; order dated 04.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on terms: renovation work not to be stalled; second respondent (Joint Commissioner) directed to pass final orders on R.P.No. 3 of 2024 within three weeks from receipt of web copy of the order without waiting for the certified copy; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs. ¶38

Ramani @Mohanambal Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be restrained from taking action against the petitioner's temple, and renovation work by the fit person stalled, until the main Revision Petition R.P.No. 3 of 2024 pending before the third respondent is disposed of.

¶25

Court's answer

In view of the Government Advocate's undertaking, the entire renovation work need not be stalled; however, the revision petition should be disposed of as early as possible.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The second respondent (Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Board) is directed to pass final orders on the petitioner's revision petition R.P.No. 3 of 2024 within three weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy.

¶40

Key takeaways

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No. 13788 of 2025) is closed and no costs are awarded.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of mandamus under Article 226 by Ramani @ Mohanambal, claiming to be the sole hereditary trustee entitled to manage the affairs of the temple, conduct the Kudamuzhuku and oversee renovation of Arulmigu Angalaparameshwari & Kasi Viswanatha Samy Temple, Soolai, Chennai, seeking restraint on HR&CE authorities acting against the temple until disposal of her revision petition R.P.No. 3 of 2024 pending before the third respondent. Her earlier application had not been recognised, the Thakkar/Fit Person was carrying out the renovation work, and an earlier direction of this Court to dispose of the revision had not been acted upon. The Court (single judge, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J., dated 04.04.2025) held that the entire renovation work need not be stalled, but directed the second respondent (Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Board, Chennai) to pass final orders on R.P.No. 3 of 2024 within three weeks from receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.12227 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.12227 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No. 13788 of 2025

RAMANI @MOHANAMBAL

... Petitioner

THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT,

¶13

119, UTHAMAR GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI.

¶14

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD,

¶15

CHENNAI.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD,

¶17

EGMORE, CHENNAI.

¶18

THE INSPECTOR, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD,

¶19

EGMORE, CHENNAI.

¶20

THE THAKKAR / FIT PERSON, ARULMIGU ANGALAPARAMESHWARI & KASI VISWANATHA SAMY TEMPLE,

¶21

NO.5 SOUTH MADA STREET, SOOLAI, CHENNAI – 600 112. ... Respondents

¶22

1/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.12227 of 2025

¶25

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to take any action against the petitioner temple until the disposal of the main Revision Petition in R.P.No. 3 of 2024 pending on the file of third respondent.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate (HR & CE)

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents not to take action

¶29

against the petitioner temple until the main revision petition in R.P.No. 3 of 2024 is disposed of.

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the only hereditary

¶31

trustee entitled to manage the affairs of the temple, conduct the Kudamuzhuku and oversee the renovation of the temple. The petitioner has already filed an application, but it was not recognized. The petitioner has also filed R.P.No. 3 of 2024 and the same is still pending. Even though, this Court had earlier directed that the said revision be disposed of, it has not yet been disposed of. However, the work is now sought to be carried out by the fit person in respect of the temple.

¶32

2/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.12227 of 2025

¶35

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that they would dispose of the revision petition at the earliest possible time.

¶36

In view thereof, the entire renovation work need not be stalled,

¶37

however, the revision petition should be disposed of as early as possible.

¶38

In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of on the following

¶39

terms:-

¶40

(i) The second respondent is directed to pass final orders on the revision petition filed by the petitioner in R.P.No. 3 of 2024 within three weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order.

¶41

(ii) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶42

04.04.2025

¶43

Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl

¶44

3/5

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.12227 of 2025