Vaikundapathi A v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.07.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN A.Vaikundapathi ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The Commissioner, Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner, 3.The Assistant Commissioner, ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner for the sale of properties of the Arulmigu Shri Navaneetha Krishnaswamy Temple in survey no.1620/4, 1638/5B and 33/1A1A of Manimoorthishvaram village, Tirunelveli for the purpose of exercising temple activities based on the representation dated 03.04.2023, in the light of 1/5

proceedings vide the Oo.Mu.No.19260/2023/U2/ dated 10.05.2023 on the file of 1st respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

ORDER

Heard Mr. Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the capacity of hereditary trustee of the temple, namely Shri Navaneetha Krishnaswamy temple, at Manimoorthishvaram Village, Udayarpatti, Tirunelveli for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner for the sale of properties of Arulmigu Shri Navaneetha Krishnaswamy Temple in S.Nos.620/4, 1638/5B and 33/1A1A of Manimoorthishvaram village, Tirunelveli for the purpose of exercising the temple activities based on the representation dated 03.04.2023, in the light of proceedings in Oo.Mu.No.19260/2023/U2/ dated 10.05.2023 of the first respondent.

2/5

3.At the time of admission, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that the petitioner's request for considering him as hereditary trustee has been rejected by the second respondent, vide order dated 22.02.2017 in O.A.No.16 of 2001. The petitioner was the second petitioner in the aforesaid proceeding. No steps have been taken thereafter by the petitioner to challenge the same.

4.Under these circumstances, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be entertained. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Index : Yes / No 12.07.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm To 1.The Commissioner, Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner, 3/5

3.The Assistant Commissioner, 4/5

C.SARAVANAN, J.

mm 12.07.2024 5/5