Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

S.Suruliammal vs The Commissioner Of Hindu ...

Madras High Court|24 November, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Writ Petitions.
Writ Petitions has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ, order or direction or any other writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned demand notice dated 17.8.2009 issued by the second respondent and quash the same.
!For Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions ... Mr. G.R.Swaminathan ^For 1st Respondent in all the Writ Petitions ... Mr. K.M.Vijayakumar, Additional Govt.Pleader For 2nd Respondent in all the Writ Petitions ... Mr. D.Jeyam :COMMON ORDER By consent of the parties to the writ petitions, the writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal. Since the issues arising for adjudication are identical in nature, a common order is passed in the above writ petitions.
2. Mr. K.M.Vijayakumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.D.Jeyam, the learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of the second respondent.
3. The impugned orders have been passed by the second respondent fixing the rent for the shops occupied by the petitioners, by following certain guidelines issued by the State Government for refixing the rent to be paid by the petitioners. Several grounds have been raised by the petitioners in the above writ petitions, while challenging the impugned demand notice issued by the second respondent. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that an appeal remedy is available to the petitioners, under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
4. It has also been stated that this Court had passed several orders, in various writ petitions, wherein similar issues had been raised permitting the petitioners to invoke the appeal remedy provided under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. However, the petitioners had been directed to deposit 35% of the enhanced rent into the Account of the second respondent Temple, within a specified period. Thereafter, the petitioners could avail the appeal remedy, along with the proof of such deposit made by the petitioners. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioners to file an appeal before the first respondent, under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, after depositing 35% of the amount claimed in the impugned demand notice, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the filing of the appeal by the petitioners, before the first respondent, the first respondent shall dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
kr.
To
1. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 034.
2. Arulmighu Kambarayaperumal & Kasi Viswanatha Swami Thirukoil represented by its Executive Officer, Cumbum- 625 516, Theni District.
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

S.Suruliammal vs The Commissioner Of Hindu ...

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
24 November, 2009