Vairavan, v. The Secretary
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.12.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD) No.1734 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.1412 of 2017 Vairavan ... Petitioner -vs1. The Secretary, Tourism, Culture & Religious Endowment Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Admn. Department, Sivagangai Division, Sivagangai District.
4. The Assistant Commissioner / The Executive Officer, A/m.Mariamman Temple, Irukkankudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
5. R.BASKARAN
6. S.GOBAL
7. R.RAJENDRAN
8. B.SHANMUGAIAH
9. PERUMALSAMY 10.
K.DURAIAPPAN 11.
M.SUBULAKSHMI 12.
S.JEYANTHI 13.
ALAGURANI 14.
P.CHELLAIAH 15.
S.SELVAM 16.
J.PALRAJ 17.
P.KRISHNARAJA 18.
S.POTHUMPONNU 19.
J.THANGAMATHI 20.
AMUTHA 21.
MUTHUMADATHI 22.
VELMURGAN 23.
INDIRA
24.
RAGAVENDRAN 25.
PARAMESWARAN 26.
SUBBUMADATHI 27.
MARIMUTHU 28.
JAGATHESWARAN 29.
RAJAGOBAL 30.
MADURAI VEERAN 31.
ARULRAJ 32.
MARIMUTHU 33.
BALAMURUGAN 34.
SUNDARAVALLI 35.
SUBRAMANIYAM 36.
AAVUDAITHANGAM 37.
VELCHAMY 38.
MAREESWARAN 39.
MARIMUTHU 40.
AKANTHAMOORTHI 41.
JOTHI 42.
MUTHUKRISHNAN 43.
SUNDAR JEGAN 44.
POTHIRAJ 45.
MAREESHWARI 46.
GOVINDHARAMAN 47.
TAMILARASI 48.
UMAMAHESHWARI 49.
GOVINDHARAJ 50.
RAMAIAH 51.
KARTHIGAISELVAN 52.
KALIAMMAL 53.
THAMARAIVALLI 54.
KARPAGAM 55.
ARUMUGAVEL 56.
SAMUTHIRAKANI 57.
IRULAPPASAMY 58.
MUTHUMARIAPPAN 59.
MARIAPPAN 60.
PALRAJ @ MARIMUTHU 61.
BALAMURUGAN 62.
SHANMUGAIAH 63.
RAJARATHINAM 64.
ALAGAMMAL 65.
SUBBULAKSHMI 66.
MUTHUSAMY 67.
NARAYANAN 68.
KUTTIRAJA 69.
NATTATHI 70.
MUTHUMARI 71.
SUBBURAJ 72.
SABEETHA LAKSHMI 73.
MUTHUMARI 74.
SELVAKUMAR 75.
AATHIPARASAKTHI
76.
RAJAVEL 77.
MARESHWARAN 78.
IRULAPPARAJA 79.
PONMADATHI 80.
THEIVANAI 81.
NARAYANA SAMY 82.
MARISELVAM 83.
MARIMUTHU 84.
PONVIJAYAKANTH 85.
KALIDHASS 86.
AATHIPARASAKTHI 87.
SARASWATHI 88.
VEERASELVI 89.
NAVANEETHAN 90.
KARPAGASELVAM 91.
PUSHPAM 92.
GURUVAMMAL 93.
RAMAKRISHNAN 94.
SHANMUGA VADIVU 95.
KAMALA DEVI 96.
KOVINDARAMAN 97.
DEIVAKANI 98.
SARATHA 99.
J.INDRADEVI 100.K.MADASAMY 101.R.RAJENTHIRAN 102.R.YESURAJ 103.S.MUNIYANDI 104.R.ALAGARSAMY 105.S.VIJAYARAMAPANDI 106.K.MARIYAPPAN 107.M.DEIVAKANI 108.B.ANTHONIYAMMAL 109.K.KANNAN 110.V.SATHYAMOORTHY 111.V.PAUL MAGENDIRAN 112.S.MAREESWARI 113.V.SAMYRAJ 114.S.FATHIMA 115.S.MUTHUSAMI 116.N.RAMAR 117.JOTHI 118.T.SUBBULAKSHM 119.V.RAMARAJ 120.M.SHANMUGAIAH 121.K.RAVI 122.R.KUMAR 123.L.PUSHPARAJ 124.S.JEYACHANDRAN 125.SELVARAJ 126.RAMAIAH 127.K.SELVARANI
128.S.THATCHINAMOORTHI 129.R.GANAMANI 130.R.SAMUTHIRAVEL 131.R.KALIMUTHU 132.GOPAL 133.V.POOCHAIAH 134.MARIMUTHU 135.ANNABAKKIYAM 136.RATHINAKUMARI 137.VALLIYAMMAL 138.GANESAN 139.PANDIARAJ 140.RAMALAKSHMI 141.KRISHNAMMAL 142.MUTHUSAMY 143.CHINNAMUTHUSAMY 144.PONRAJ 145.KRISHNAN 146.IRULAPPASAMY 147.BALAKRISHNAN 148.MURUGAN 149.PANDIARAJ 150.SEETHANGANI 151.MUTHUVAIRAVAN 152.MUTHURAKKU 153.SUBRAMANIYAN 154.BOOMIRAJ 155.SUBRAMANIYAN 156.RAMAMOORTHY 157.MARIYAPPAN 158.T.SAKTHI 159.S.MUTHURAJ 160.E.ERULAPPASAMY 161.S.KARUPPASAMY 162.B.VALARMATHI 163.M.PANDI 164.MASILAMANI 165.P.MURUGESHWARI 166.L.MADASAMY 167.S.MUNIYASAMY 168.K.MUTHUSAMY 169.BALAMANI 170.M.KALIDOSS 171.V.CHINNA RAJA 172.P.MARISELVAM 173.K.MUTHU LAKSHMI 174.POOMARI 175.S.MUTHU MANICKAM 176.R.RAJASEKAR 177.V.KARTHIKEYAN 178.SHANMUGA LAKSHMI 179.G.SUDALAI RAJA
180. MAREESWARI 181.DHARMARAJ 182.V.IRULAPPASAMY 183.CHINNAVEL RAJA 184.KASIRAJAN 185.POONGOTHAI 186.NATARAJAN 187.PANDI MUTHU VEL ... Respondents (R5 to R187 impleaded by orders dated 06.12.2017 & 21.12.2017) PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 656/2001A4 dated 22.01.2017 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Banuprasath For R1 to R3 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Govt. Advocate For R4 : Mr.P.Mahendran For R5 to R159 : Mr.K.Murugavel Rajan For R160 to R187 : Mr.K.K.Kannan ******
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.656/2001A4 dated 22.01.2017, by which, the petitioner was directed to vacate the encroached shops within seven days, failing which suitable action would be taken against him for removal of shops with the assistance of the Police.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
i) He was permitted to occupy the land to the extent of 200 sq.ft. In S.No.933 belonging to Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, in which he put up a superstructure for the purpose of running a Vessel Shop and the said shop was duly let out to him by the Trustees of the Temple for a monthly rent of Rs.200/- on due receipt of Rs.10,000/- as Security Deposit. After the Temple was taken over by the HR&CE Department, he started paying the rent to the third respondent; ii) When the matter stood thus, the third respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of the fourth respondent without issuing any show cause and he entered appearance through an Advocate and filed an objection.
Since the petitioner has refused to pay the rent to the Trustees and started paying the same directly to the 4th respondent, at the instigation of the Trustees, such proceedings were initiated, whereas similarly placed persons like that of the petitioner were allowed to run the shops without any hindrance. After several round of litigations, finally this Court by order dated 08.12.2016 directed the petitioner to approach the respondents 3 and 4 by way of representation and the same was directed to be considered by the respondents 3 and 4 for extension of lease upon acceptance of payment of prevailing monthly rent by the petitioner.
petitioner was ready to pay the rent to be fixed by the respondents, all of a sudden, the present impugned order for vacating the shop came to be passed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 30.11.2017, by consent on either side, two Advocate Commissioners were appointed to ascertain the exact position and file a detailed report along with sketch and photographs etc. before this Court. Accordingly, they filed a report dated 15.12.2017 by extending few suggestions for consideration of this Court and in the report, it is inter alia stated as follows:
"8...We have discussed elaborately and came to conclusion and unanimously accepted both by the officials of HR&CE, Trustees and the counsels, in which, the construction of new shops on the three sides of the main temple was discussed and it was agreed by all the parties concerned and the Departmental Engineers committed that the building of shops can be completed within 3 to 5 months and the allotments can be made to the respective traders within the overall maximum of 6 months. It was further agreed that the allotment of the newly built shops will be strictly on Lot Basis without giving room for any kind of favour to anybody. On completion of shops, all the respective parties opined that the allotment will be made strictly in the presence of Advocate Commissioners if this Hon'ble Court directs so. We further submit that the proposed Building plan submitted in the Annexure of this Report is subject to Modification/alteration as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court."
4. Today, the Temple authorities and Trustees along with their respective counsel are present. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the evicted parties have stated that their parties mutually agreed that there will not be any unauthorized constructions beyond the purview of allotment and they will run the shops only in places earmarked by the Temple authorities. It is in turn submitted by the Temple authorities that they are inclined to permit the shop owners to have their temporary business operations without any deviation in regard to the extent of space to be earmarked by them, till completion of the permanent superstructures.
5. In view of the submissions made on either side, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Temple authorities to speed up the process of completion of construction activities, with further direction to both the parties to take recourse to what is agreed upon hereinabove. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CSI) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar
To:
1. The Secretary, Tourism, Culture & Religious Endowment Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Admn. Department, Sivagangai Division, Sivagangai District.
+One cc to Mr.P.Banuprasath, Advocate, SR.No.94206 +One cc to Mr.P.Mahendran, Advocate, SRNo.94158 +2 ccs to Mr.K.K.Kannan, Advocate, SR.Nos.94653, 36756 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.94786 ar RL/9C/7P/SKN/RSK/SAR1/1/2/2018 W.P(MD) No.1734 of 2017 2/2 21.12.2017