Vupputur Ramesh, v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Vupputur Ramesh ... Petitioner vs.
1.The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.600034.
2.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Executive Officer, Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Sri Rangam, Trichirappalli.
4.Sri Vuppur Alwar Chetty's- Charities, represented- by its President, Thatha Sampath Kumar.
5.Swaroop 6.Thatha Sampath Kumar 1/6
7.Sethu Raman 8.C.Vivekanandan 9.A.Balasubramaniyam ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent 1 to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2016 and bring the 3rd respondent trust under the control of the 1st Respondent. For Petitioner : No Appearance For R1 and R2 : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.R.Bharanidharan For R5 : No Appearance For R4, R6 to R9 : Notice Returned
O R D E R
The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.08.2016 and pass final orders to bring the 4th respondent-Trust under the administrative control of the 1st respondent.
2/6
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent/Trust was formed by one Alwar Chettiyar for performance of various religious charities in the Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Sri Rangam. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as per the terms of the Trust Deed, the 4th respondentTrust is a Public Religious Charitable Trust and the affairs of the Trust are not carried out in accordance with the object of the Trust by the existing Trustees. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents on 17.08.2016 seeking necessary order from the 1st respondent to bring the 4th respondent-Trust within the administrative control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The said representation has not been considered till date. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner.
4. Heard the submission of Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 3/6
5. Though the 5th respondent is served and his name is also printed in the cause-list, there is no representation for the 5th respondent. Notice sent to the respondents 4, 6 to 9 are returned 'unserved'. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 4, 6 to 9, non-service of notice on respondents 4, 6 to 9 may not be an impediment for the disposal of the writ petition.
6. The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider his representation dated 17.08.2016 and pass orders.
7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the Competent Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner is the 2nd respondent herein and the said Authority will consider it and pass final orders in accordance with law.
8. In view of the same, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.08.2016 and pass final orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 4/6
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 9.
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
27.11.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No dm To 1.The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.600034.
2.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Executive Officer, Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Sri Rangam, Trichirappalli.
5/6
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm 27.11.2024 6/6