Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K K SASIDHARAN
Outcome
Withdrawn
In view of submission so made, the WritPetitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as indicated above
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. V.Nithyakalyani: Respondents in both W.Ps.Common Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned orders dated 11.10.2011 and18.10.2011 made by the second…
Judgment
1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 10.01.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARANW.P.(MD)Nos.13303 and 13304 of 2011andM.P.(MD) Nos.2,2,3 and 3 of 2011K.M.Paramasivam, President: Petitioner in both W.Ps. Vs.
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai-625 001.
The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thirumangalam, Madurai.
Operative part
V.Nithyakalyani: Respondents in both W.Ps.Common Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned orders dated 11.10.2011 and18.10.2011 made by the second respondent in Se.Mu.Mu.No.8538/2011/A3 andSe.Mu.Mu.No.8537/2011/A3 respectively and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasi KumarFor Respondents 1to3: Mr.T.R.Janardhanan Additional Government PleaderCOMMON ORDERThe learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the Writ Petitions with liberty to file revision petitions before the Commissioner under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of submission so made, the WritPetitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as indicated above.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an order permitting the petitioner to file revision petitions within a prescribed period and a further direction to the Commissioner to dispose of the same on merits.3.
The petitioner is given two weeks time to file revision petitions before the Commissioner, challenging the orders dated11.10.2011 and 18.10.2011 respectively and in the event of filing any such revision petitions within the time granted by this Court, the same shall be entertained by the Commissioner and orders should be passed on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2merits and as per law, without rejecting the revision petitions on the ground of limitation. The Commissioner is directed to consider there vision petitions and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such revision petitions. It is open to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority for appropriate interim relief and it is upto the Commissioner either to take up the interim applications to protect the interest of the parties during the pendencyof revision petitions or to dispose of the main revision petitions.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (T&P)/ True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai. 2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai-625 001.3.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thirumangalam, Madurai.+1CC TO MR.R.MANOHAR, ADVOCATE SR : 1181+1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, 1111SmlSR : 24.01.2012 : 2p/6cCommon Order made inW.P.(MD)Nos.13303 and 13304 of 201110.10.2012
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of submission so made, the WritPetitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as indicated above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 — s. 21.
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.