Madras High CourtWP/7422/2017disposed of with direction

P.Kendrasamy, v. The Commissioner,

2024-09-11Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.09.2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI P. Kendrasamy

...Petitioner

vs.

1. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 34.

2. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode.

4. The Tahsildar, Perundurai, Erode District.

5. The Block Development Officer, Chennimalai Panchayat Union, Chennaimalai,

6. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore - 18.

1/6

7. The Sub Registrar, Uthukuli,

8. Mohanasundaram ...

Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 6 to consider and pass orders on merits by disposing the written representation made by the petitioner on 13.02.2017 within a stipulated time.

For petitioner : Mr. C. Prakasam For respondents : Mr.S. Ravichandran Addl. Govt. Pleader (HR & CE) for R1 and R6 Mr.U. Baranidharan Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2 to R5 and R7 Mr.S. Arjun for R8

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for Mandamus, seeking for issuance of direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.02.2017 and pass orders. 2/6

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was elected as President of Sirukalanji Panchayat for the period of 2011-2016. It is his grievance that the temple lands of Seer Kaleeswarar Temple, Arulmigu Alaguraya Perumal and Arulmigu Chellandiamman Temple were alienated by the 8th respondent in collusion with the one Mohanasundaram, who was the ExPresident of the said Village Panchayat to some third parties. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint in C.S.R. No.39 of 2017 before the Inspector of Police, Chennimalai Police Station, but the anti-social elements have commenced construction work in the said temple lands. Hence, he submitted representation dated 13.02.2017 to the respondents 1 to 6 seeking to take stringent action to recover the temple lands from them, which has not evoked any response. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice, if this Court issues a direction to the official respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.02.2017 and for issuance of appropriate directions in the above regard, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

3/6

4. Mr.S.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st and 6th respondents has no objection to such a direction being issued by this Court.

5. In view of the above submissions, this Court without going into the merits of the case, issues a direction to the official respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.02.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the 8th respondent. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 11.09.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vsi2 4/6

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

vsi2 To