Dismissed¶32

R.Amirtha Gowri v. The Commissioner

Madras HC6 Jan 2025WP(MD)/31514/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed - certiorari - notice under Section 79(c) HR and CE Act - temple tenancy dispute - petitioners not tenants, paternal uncle is tenant - liberty reserved to contest on merits - Arulmigu Koodalagar Thirukkovil, Madurai - HR&CE Department - Madurai Bench of Madras High Court - K. Kumaresh Babu, J. - W.P.(MD).No.31514 of 2024 - notice dated 14.12.2024 - decision dated 06.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to raise all issues on merits and in accordance with law if the second respondent initiates action pursuant to the impugned notice; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶32

R.Amirtha Gowri Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.31514 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.31514 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.26396 of 2024

¶7

1.R.Amirtha Gowri

¶8

2.V.Thalani

¶9

3.V.Priyadharshini ...Petitioners

¶10

¶11

1.The Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam,

¶13

Chennai – 600 034.

¶14

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶15

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Arulmigu Koodalagar Thirukkovil, Madurai – 1.

¶16

3.The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer,

¶17

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Arulmigu Koodalagar Thirukkovil, Madurai – 1. ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.467/2024/Aa3 dated 14.12.2024 and quash the same.

¶19

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

¶20

1/4

¶21

W.P.(MD).No.31514 of 2024

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Gunasekaran For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R-3 : Mr.S.Manohar

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents

¶25

1 & 2 and Mr.S.Manohar learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶26

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned notice issued by the third respondent dated 14.12.2024.

¶27

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are not tenant under the temple and only their paternal uncle is a tenant. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 79 of HR and CE Act cannot be initiated against the petitioner. The present notice had been issued by indicating the provisions of Section 79(c) of the Act would be initiated by the appropriate authority against the petitioners.

¶28

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

¶29

2/4

¶30

W.P.(MD).No.31514 of 2024

¶31

In such view of the matter, I do not find any necessity to indulge with the present order impugned in this Writ Petition. If the appropriate authority viz., the second respondent initiates any action as per the impugned notice herein, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all issues on merits and in accordance with law.

¶32