Disposed

Duraipandi v. The Joint Director

Madras HC22 Apr 2025WP(MD)/10946/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction to the Joint Director, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department to act on his representation alleging misappropriation of funds collected using a temple's name. The court directed the authority to consider the representation on merits and pass orders within four weeks, without expressing views on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 22.01.2025 on merits and pass orders in accordance with law within four weeks.

Duraipandi Vs The Joint Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10946 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10946 of 2025

¶7

Duraipandi ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Joint Director, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Near VGS School, Tuticorin District.

¶10

2.S.Balamurugan ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to initiate appropriate action against the second respondent for misappropriating the money which was collected by using the temple name by considering the petitioner's representation dated. 22.01.2025, within time stipulated by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Ramnath For R1 : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan Additional Government Pleader

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.10946 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to initiate appropriate action against the second respondent for misappropriating the money, which was collected by using the temple name by considering the petitioner's representation dated. 22.01.2025.

¶18

2 . By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶19

3 . Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the second respondent, notice to the second respondent is hereby dispensed with.

¶20

4 . Seeking initiation of appropriate action against the second respondent for misappropriating the funds collected using the temple's name, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.01.2025 to the first respondent. As the said representation has not been considered till date, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶21

_____________ Page 2 of 5_

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.10946 of 2025

¶25

5 . It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶26

6 . In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.01.2025, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the first respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

¶27

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.10946 of 2025

¶31

7 . With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

NCC : Yes / No 22.04.2025 Index : Yes / No smn2

¶33

To:-

¶34

The Joint Director, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Near VGS School, Tuticorin District.

¶35

_____________ Page 4 of 5_

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.10946 of 2025

¶38

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶39

smn2

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.10946 of 2025

¶41

22.04.2025

¶42

_____________ Page 5 of 5_

¶43

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

Duraipandi v. The Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duraipandi v. The Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.G.Krishnan Vs The Commissioner

R.Karthikeyan Vs The Regional Transport Officer

Sekar S Vs The Executive Engineer (Operation and Maintenance)

M/s.Jehorah Fire Works Factory Vs The District Revenue Officer

K.Saraswathi Vs The Secretary

P.Gladys Lily Paulsamy Vs The Director of Collegiate Education