Madras High CourtWP(MD)/1289/2026disposed of

Kannan T v. The Commissioner

2026-01-21Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy7 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY & W.M.P(MD)Nos.1020 & 1022 of 2026 Kannan T ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Chennai.

2. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Thanjavur District.

3. The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Pudukkottai District.

4. The Executive Officer A/m. Balasubramaniya Swamy Temple Senthangudi Jeyanagaram, Nagaram Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

5. The Tahsildhar Taluk Office Alangudi Taluk Pudukkottai District.

... Respondents 1/7

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. No. 11173/2025/E1, dated 08.12.2025 and quash the same with consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate order in conformity with the order made in WP (MD) No.23175 of 2025 dated 26.08.2025 after examining both parties.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, GA for R1 to 3 & 5 Mr.G.Mathavan, for R4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent.

2. Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 & 5 and Mr.G.Mathavan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the 4th respondent.

3. By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2/7

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in a connected matter in WP.(MD)No.23175 of 2025, this Court passed an order dated 26.08.2025. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:

"7. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 submits that the representation of the villagers from Senthankulam village in Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District will be considered and disposed of on merits together with the petitioner's representation representing the interest of the villagers from the Nagaram Village within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the parties.

8. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3. No costs."

5. By referring the above paragraph, he would submit that the name of village was wrongly typed as "Senthankulam" instead of "Senthangudi". Further, he would submit that the aforesaid order was 3/7

passed by recording the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the representation filed by the villagers of Senthangudi will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed. However, now, the impugned order came to be passed by the 2nd respondent without considering the said representation. Hence, this petition.

6. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would fairly admit that the representation filed by the Senthangudi villagers was not recorded in the impugned order. Hence, he requests this Court to set aside the said impugned order and remand the matter back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

8. In the case on hand, this Court had specifically passed an order dated 26.08.2025 (extracted supra), whereby, the submission made by 4/7

the learned Additional Government Pleader, that the representation of the Senthangudi Villagers will be considered, was duly recorded. In such case, the 2nd respondent is supposed to have recorded the representation of the Senthangudi Villagers and provided a detailed reasoning for not accepting the said representation at the time of passing the impugned order. However, he had neither recorded the representation nor provided any reasonings for rejection of said representation. When such being the case, it is clear that the representation filed by the Senthagudi Villagers was not at all considered by the 2nd respondent at the time of passing the impugned order and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. This Court directs the 2nd respondent to consider the representation filed by Senthangudi Villagers and pass a detailed order, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5/7

10. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

21.01.2026 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No nsa To