C.R.Vijay v. R.Sathishkumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.11.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR W.P No.18926 of 2020 and WMP.No.23493 of 2020 C.R.Vijay

...Petitioner

Versus

1. R.Sathishkumar

2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

3. Joint Commissioner, HR & CE (Admn) Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, calling for all the records of the second respondent pertaining to the impugned order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the second respondent in R.P.No.204 of 2018 on the file of the Commissioner, HR & CE, Admn, Department, Chennai - 34, quash the same and direct the second respondent to conduct the enquiry afresh after giving opportunity to all parties without reference to any other proceedings. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ashokkumar, change of vakalat given For R1 : M/s. G.Sugumaran For R2 & R3 : Mr.K.Karthikeyan 1/5

Government Advocate

O R D E R

There is no representation for the petitioner. 2.

This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent, setting aside the order passed by the third respondent allowing the petition filed by the petitioner in I.A.No. 4 of 2018 seeking to implead himself as party respondent in M.P.No. 6 of 2017 pending on the file of the third respondent.

3.

The first respondent filed M.P.No.6 of 2017 seeking to record him as hereditary trustee in the place of his father Dr. P.V. Rajkumar. In the said Petition, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No. 4 of 2018 to implead himself as a party to the proceedings and the same was ordered by the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed a revision before the second respondent R.P.No.204 of 2018 and the said revision petition was allowed by the second respondent mainly on the ground that the rival claim set up as to succession to the office of hereditary trusteeship cannot be decided by authorities constituted under HR & CE and it is for the Civil Court to decide such rival claims. Aggrieved by the allowing of the revision filed by the first respondent the petitioner is before this Court. 2/5

4. There is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the arguments of learned learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and Mr.G.Sugumaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

5.

The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that M.P.No.6 of 2017 was filed by the first respondent even during the lifetime of his father. Subsequently, his father died. Therefore a fresh application was filed by the first respondent in M.P.No. 169 of 2021 on the file of the third respondent and the said application was allowed recognising the first respondent as hereditary trustee of the subject temple under section 54 (i) of HR & CE Act.

6. In view of the fact the first respondent has been recognised as hereditary trustee of the subject temple in a subsequent order passed in M.P.No. 169 of 2021 on the file of the third respondent, the prayer sought for in the writ petition has become infractuous. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated 28.08.2021 recognising the first respondent as hereditary trustee of the subject temple in the manner known to law. 3/5

7. With these clarifications, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.11.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order av To

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

2. Joint Commissioner, HR & CE (Admn) Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

4/5

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

av W.P No.18926 of 2020 12.11.2024 5/5