← Library
Madras High CourtWP/7582/2017disposed of

S.Thangaraj v. The Commissioner

2017-03-28Honourable Mr Justice B. Rajendran5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.03.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.No.7582 of 2017 and WMP.No.8263 of 2017 1.S.Thangaraj 2.V.Suresh 3.S.Kannan 4.L.Rajalingam ...

Petitioners

Versus

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department, Kottai Mariamman Temple Complex, Salem-1.

3.Fit Person/Asst. Commissioner (Admn), Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department, Kottai Mariamman Temple Complex, Salem-1.

4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vinayagar and Mariamman Vagaiyaraa Temples, Suramangalam, Salem-5.

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 6.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,(L&O) Salem (West), Suramangalam,

7.The Tahsildar, Salem West, Pallapatti, Salem.

... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dt.13.02.2017 passed in R.P.Nos.232 to 235/2016 D2 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same; consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to treat the petitioners as tenants under the 4th Respondent temple in respect of the premises in their respective occupation, within a reasonable time. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Neelakandan For RR1 to 4 : Mr.M.Maharaja Special Government Pleader (HE&CE)

O R D E R

By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioners herein are running different shops situated in Azhagapuram Main Road, Suramangalam, Salem in s.No.10/3 in Bodinaickenpatti (Suramangalam) Village, Salem Taluk and District, which belongs to the fourth respondent temple. According to the petitioners they have requested the temple administration to consider them as direct tenants to the temple. While so, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice on 18.04.2012 as to why action shall not be taken to remove them from the said shops. Though explanations were given, such representations were rejected to recognise the petitioners as tenants. On the basis of such orders of rejection, the third respondent also passed a resolution not to recognise the petitioners as tenants. The petitioners therefore filed W.P.Nos.

32495 of 2012 and 33736 to 33738 of 2012 challenging the resolution passed by the 3rd respondent, wherein this Court by a common order dated 13.02.2014 observed that since the matters are pending before the Joint Commissioner for his consideration, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and directed the Joint Commissioner (HR & CE), Salem to pass final orders on the proceedings initiated subsequent to the notice dated 17.08.2012 within a period of eight weeks. However, without complying the order of this Court, the 2nd respondent by an order dated 13.06.2014 asked the petitioners to vacate the premises and surrender vacant possession to the temple within seven days. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners filed Revision Petition in R.P.No.

respondent. Pending revision petition, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 03.07.2014 to carry out eviction and thereby asked the respondents 5 to 7 to fix up a convenient date for eviction. Hence, petitioners filed W.P.Nos.18343 to 18346 of 2014 seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the interim stay petition, wherein this Court by an order dated 10.07.2014 directed the Commissioner of HR&CE, Chennai to dispose of the interim stay application in Revision Petition Nos.90 to 93 of 2014 and ordered that the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed or interrupted till then. The petitioners further submit that the 1st respondent allowed the Revision Petition by an order dated 22.08.2014, set aside the order of 2nd respondent made on 13.06.

2014 and remanded the matter back to the 2nd respondent with a specific direction that he shall take into consideration the recommendation made by the Executive Officer and to pass order with a period of two months. While so, the 2nd respondent by an order dated 03.07.2015 directed the petitioners to handover the vacant possession of the premises in dispute within seven days, otherwise eviction will be carried out by the 3rd respondent. Challenging the above order, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.21369 to 21732 of 2015 in which this Court by an order dated 27.08.2015, disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioners to file a revision before the 1st respondent with a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and to maintain status quo. Again the petitioners filed W.P.No.

24577 of 2016, wherein this Court directed the 1st respondent to take up the Revision petition and further proceedings based on the 3rd respondent's letter, till such time, ordered to defer all further proceedings. Subsequently, the 1st respondent took up the revision petitions and passed a common order dated 13.02.2017 dismissing all four Revision Petitions. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners are before this court challenging the order dated 13.02.2017.

3.

I heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

4.

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent 1 to 4, submitted that as against the impugned order, there is an appeal remedy before the government, however, without exhausting such appeal remedy, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions and therefore, they are not maintainable and consequently prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petitions.

5.

Admittedly, as against the order, which is impugned in this writ petition, there is a remedy by way of appeal before the Government but without exhausting the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the above writ petition. The writ petition is therefore not maintainable. The

petitioners are at liberty to prefer an appeal within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till such time, the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed by the respondents.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS VI ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar rm To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department, Kottai Mariamman Temple Complex, Salem-1.

3.Fit Person/Asst. Commissioner (Admn), Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department, Kottai Mariamman Temple Complex, Salem-1.

4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vinayagar and Mariamman Vagaiyaraa Temples, Suramangalam, Salem-5.

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 6.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,(L&O) Salem (West), Suramangalam,

7.The Tahsildar, Salem West, Pallapatti, +2cc to Mr.R. Neelakandan, Advocate Sr. 19146 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr. 19748 W.P.No.7582 of 2017 KS(CO) VR(11/04/2017)