M.Ammasaiappan v. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Coimbatore - 18.2
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also efflux of time the first limb of the prayer seeking direction to the first respondent to permit the petitioner to join with the second respondent in conducting…
- Para 44. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.11.2024Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderavTo1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Coimbatore - 18.2. The Fit Person, Arulmigu Adhikaruvannarayar Bomma Thevar Temple…
Judgment
W.P.No.5077 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.11.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARW.P No.5077 of 2020M.Ammasaiappan ...PetitionerVs.
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Coimbatore - 18.
The Fit Person, Arulmigu Adhikaruvannarayar Bomma Thevar Temple, The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Venugopalasamy Temple, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District. ...RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner to join with the second respondent in conducting the annual temple festival on 07.03.2020, 08.03.2020 and 09.03.2020 and to dispose of the O.A.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent on merits based on the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2020 within the stipulated time frame. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5077 of 2020 For Petitioner: Mr.K.R.SamrattFor Respondents: Mr.S.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the first respondent to permit him to join with the second respondent in conducting the annual temple festival on 07.03.2020, 08.03.2020 and 09.03.2020 and to dispose of the O.A.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent on merits, by considering his representation dated 22.02.2020. 2. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is no more.
In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also efflux of time the first limb of the prayer seeking direction to the first respondent to permit the petitioner to join with the second respondent in conducting the annual temple festival on 07.03.2020, 08.03.2020 and 09.03.2020 has become infructuous. As far as second limb of the prayer seeking direction to the first respondent to dispose of the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5077 of 2020O.A.No.2 of 2017 is concerned, the legal representatives of the petitioner are entitled to approach the first respondent seeking expeditious disposal of the said Original application if is still pending on the file of the first respondent.
Operative part
With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.11.2024Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderavTo1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Coimbatore - 18.2. The Fit Person, Arulmigu Adhikaruvannarayar Bomma Thevar Temple, The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Venugopalasamy Temple, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5077 of 2020S. SOUNTHAR, J.avW.P No.5077 of 202004.11.20244/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.