V.Pandiarajan Vs the Secretary to Government

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to stop utilizing the funds of Arulmighu Vadapalani Andavar Temple for the construction of marriage hall near Valli Thirumana Mandapam in S.No.55, Puliyur Village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Nerkundram Padhai Vadapalani, Chennai600 026 and for the construction of Staff quarters apartment complex at the site where the Deivanai Thirumana Mandapam was situated in S.No.60, Puliyur Village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Azhagiri Nagar Main Road, Vadapalani Chennai 600026 in the land owned by Arulmigu Vadapalani

¶20

Page 1 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

21.03.2025.

¶23

WP No.33305 of 2025

¶24

Andaavar Temple by considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.03.2025.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate-General, Assisted by Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader, for the first respondent Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, Senior Advocate, Assisted by Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader, for the second respondent Mr.A.K.Shriram, Senior Advocate, Assisted by Mr.R.Baranidharan, for the third respondent

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging inaction

¶30

on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in taking appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint on the alleged illegal construction made by the management of the third respondent.

¶31

Page 2 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

WP No.33305 of 2025

¶34

The averments made in the petition as also documents

¶35

annexed therewith do not support the contention of the petitioner that the respondents are guilty of inaction.

¶36

As a matter of fact, the notice dated 31.05.2025 clearly shows that inquiry has been initiated and the petitioner was called upon to appear for inquiry on 11.06.2025. It appears that inquiry could not take place on that day as the Executive Officer not available. The petitioner has thereafter filed this petition on 29.08.2025.

¶37

On the facts of the case, as disclosed from the petition and

¶38

documents annexed therewith, it cannot be said that the respondents

¶39

are sitting over the complaint of the petitioner and not taking any action. When the inquiry has been opened and it is going on, we are not inclined to keep this petition pending.

¶40

The complaint made by the petitioner shall be duly inquired into by the third respondent, and a report shall be submitted before the second respondent within a period of three weeks. Depending upon the report, appropriate action, if necessary, shall be taken in the

¶41

Page 3 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

WP No.33305 of 2025

¶44

matter by the second respondent.

¶45