Madras High CourtWP(MD)/6444/2015withdrawn dismissed

N. Natarajan, Secretary, A/M. v. Additional Chief Secretary

2015-04-23Honourable Mr Justice S. Manikumar,Honourable Mr Justice G. Chockalingam3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23/4/2015 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR a n d THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Writ Petition (MD) No.6444 of 2015 M.Natarajan Secretary Arulmigu Ulagamman Udanurai Kasivisvanathar Thirukoil Arupaththumoovar Sivanadiyar Arakkattalai 108 Nayinar Street Tenkasi 627 811 ...

Petitioner Vs

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Tourism and Hindu Religious Endowments Department St. George Fort Chennai.

2. The Director Directorate of Town and Country Planning Chepakkam Chennai.

3. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Department Tirunelveli.

4. The District Collector Collectorate Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli.

5. The Commissioner Tenkasi Municipality Tenkasi

6. The Executive Officer Arulmigu Ulagamman Udannurai Kadivisvanathar Thirukovil Tenkasi ...

Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st to 6th respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 5/3/2015 and consequently direct them to pass an order/direction by preventing the public from digging bore well and raising many stories buildings in the close proximity of the temple which was constructed by the Barackira King in 14th century. For Petitioner ...

Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus For Respondents ...

Mr.P.Athimoola Pandian for R.5.

- - - - -

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR,J) The averments at para No.4 of the supporting affidavit indicate that the petitioner as the Secretary of Arulmigu Ulagamman Udannurai Kasivisvanathar Thirukovil Arupaththumoovar Sivanadiyar Trust and for the protection of the Temple, has filed a pro bono publico litigation.

2. As private interest is reflected in the supporting affidavit, when we posed a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the writ petition should be disposed of on that ground or he would like to withdraw the writ petition to move the learned Single Judge, Mr.V.Rajv Rufus, learned counsel for the petitioner opted for the latter.

3. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar