N.Anbalagan v. The Joint Commissioner
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Therefore, keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to both approach the police and also to file such appeal as against the scheme framed, this writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- HR&CE Act, 1959
Key paragraphs
- Para 44.A.Subbiramanian5.M.R.Thangadurai6.R.Narasimman7.T.Selvaganesh8.M.Ramachandiran9.M.Krishnamurthy10.R.Palpandian11.S.Muthukumar ...RespondentsWrit Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's petition dated 12.03.2026 consequently, to initiate 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8688 of 2026appropriate action against the respondents 4…
Judgment
W.P(MD)No.8688 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 01.04.2026 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P(MD)No.8688 of 2026N.Anbalagan... PetitionerVs.
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thoothukudi District.
The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thoothukudi District.
The Executive Officer(E.O) Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District.
A.Subbiramanian5.M.R.Thangadurai6.R.Narasimman7.T.Selvaganesh8.M.Ramachandiran9.M.Krishnamurthy10.R.Palpandian11.S.Muthukumar ...RespondentsWrit Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's petition dated 12.03.2026 consequently, to initiate 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8688 of 2026appropriate action against the respondents 4 to 11 for producing forged documents and misleading the authority and obtain the order in their favour dated 09.07.2025 passed in O.A.NO.13/2024 on his file. For Petitioner :Mr.G.KartheebanFor R1 to R3:Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan, Government Advocate For R4 to R7:Mr.W.DilipkumarORDERThis writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 12.03.2026 and consequently to initiate appropriate action against the respondents 4 to 11 for producing forged documents and misleading the authority and obtaining an order in their favor on 09.07.2025 in O.A.No.13/2024.2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that an application in O.A.No.13 of 2024 was filed in the year 2020.
One of the petitioner is B.Chella Perumal. According to the petitioner, the said Chella Perumal died in the year 2023 itself. After his death, by forging his signature, the above application in O.A.No.3 of 2024 was filed and orders were also passed. Therefore, the entire episode is an act of forgery and impersonation and therefore he has made the above representation and the first respondent has to take action in the manner known to law on the representation. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8688 of 20263.When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 would submit that already draft scheme was published in the said O.A.No.13 of 2024 and the petitioner had also given his objections and only after considering his objections, a modified order is now passed on 03.01.2026. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the draft order or as the modified order as the case may be, it will be open for him to take such steps in the manner known to law.
The final scheme is yet to be published. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 to 11 would submit that the only 5 persons are needed to file the above application for framing the scheme. When the application was prepared, the same was done very early in the year 2023 itself. The signature that was made only belongs to the said Chella Perumal and no signature was forged. However, when after preparing the application, there was time lag between the preparing of the application and filing, the learned counsel, without verifying with the parties, had simply presented the same, which also contained the dead person's name. The same is only an innocuous mistake that was committed while filing and no signature was forged and there was also undue benefit is also taken on account of the same. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8688 of 20265.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
Operative part
6. In view of the assertion made on behalf of the respondents 4 to 11 that the signature was never forged, if the petitioner contends to the contrary, it is for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional police with the prayer that the signature has been forged and also allege the further ingredients of the criminal offences upon which, after being satisfied about the prima facie Commission of the offenses, the jurisdictional police shall register a case and take action. With reference to the scheme or the modified scheme, appropriate remedy is available to the petitioner either to challenge the draft stage or to await the final scheme to be notified and challenge the same in the manner known to law by way of filing appropriate appeal under the HR&CE Act 1959. Therefore, keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to both approach the police and also to file such appeal as against the scheme framed, this writ petition stands disposed of.
No costs.01.04.2026NCC:Yes/No4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8688 of 2026To1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thoothukudi District. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thoothukudi District. 3. The Executive Officer(E.O) Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District.5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8688 of 2026D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.NsW.P(MD)No.8688 of 202601.04.20266
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to both approach the police and also to file such appeal as against the scheme framed, this writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; HR&CE Act, 1959.
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.