Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

B Sivaramakrishnan vs The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Cuddalore 2 The Inspector Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Thittakudi

Madras High Court|29 June, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.06.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.16339 of 2017 B.Sivaramakrishnan ... Petitioner v.
1 The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Cuddalore
2 The Inspector Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Thittakudi, Cuddalore District
3 Tahsildar Thittakudi Taluk Cuddalore District ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Cuddalore the First respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.06.2017 and to pass orders in accordance with law within a time frame as may fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sidharth For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja Spl. Govt. Pleader - for R1 & R2 Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Spl. Govt. Pleader - for R3 O R D E R The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider his representation dated 05.06.2017, in accordance with law, within a time frame.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the petitioner's representation dated 05.062017 for removing the Priest, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders so far.
3. Mr.Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.T.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the 3rd respondent. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the 1st respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation, in accordance with law, after giving notice to the Priest.
4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the writ petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.06.2017 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to Siva, who is the Priest of the temple, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
costs.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No 29.06.2017 Rj To
1 The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Cuddalore
2 The Inspector Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Thittakudi, Cuddalore District
3 Tahsildar Thittakudi Taluk Cuddalore District M.DURAISWAMY, J.
Rj W.P.No.16339 of 2017 29.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

B Sivaramakrishnan vs The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Cuddalore 2 The Inspector Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Thittakudi

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
29 June, 2017
Judges
  • M Duraiswamy