Rajendran C v. The Joint Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH C.Rajendran : Petitioner Vs.

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tiruchirappalli.

: Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the representation dated on 10.03.2025 for appointment of the hereditary trustee of the Arulmigu Angalamman Temple, Kannanur, Thuraiyur Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District.

For Petitioners : Mr. M.Beema Rao For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Addl. Government Pleader 1/6

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2025, seeking appointment as the hereditary trustee of the Arulmigu Angalamman Temple, located at Kannanur, Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The petitioner claims that his ancestors have been maintaining the petition-mentioned temple, in accordance with the order passed in O.A. No. 51 of 1951. The grievance of the petitioner is that, following the demise of his father on 19.05.2001, who had been serving as the hereditary trustee, he submitted a representation to the respondent, with the consent of all other legal heirs, requesting the appointment of his daughter Priya, as the hereditary trustee. However, since no action was taken on the said representation, the petitioner has now approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition 2/6

4. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

5. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2025, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the respondent to consider the same on its own merits. 3/6

6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 09.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PKN 4/6

To The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tiruchirappalli.

5/6

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

PKN W.P.(MD) No.9972 of 2025 09.04.2025 6/6