Madras High CourtWP(MD)/21037/2022disposed of

Sivanesan .R v. The Executive Officer

2022-09-13Honourable Mr Justice Mohammed Shaffiq4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.09.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and W.M.P(MD).No.15270 of 2022 R.Sivanesan ... Petitioner Vs.

The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Agneeswarar Thirukoil, Anthanallur Village and Post, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

...Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order of the Respondent, dated 24.02.2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to effect name transfer of the Demand Collection Register (Miscellaneous Demand Register) as tenant for the property in Survey No.144/3, Mekkudi Village, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District and register the petitioner as the tenant in the Respondent Temple records.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For Respondent : Dr.Ramesh Mahadev 1/4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 24.02.2022, whereby, a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Six Thousand only) was sought to be recovered from one Mr.Natesan, who is a lessee in respect of the property belonging to Arulmighu Agneeswarar Thirukoil, Chinnakaruppur Village.

2. This writ petition is filed by one Mr.Sivanesan, who claims to be a sub-lessee of the said premises. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the petitioner is a sub-lessee and he has submitted a representation, dated 24.11.2018 for name transfer.

3. It is submitted by Dr.Ramesh Mahadev, learned counsel for the Respondent that the proceedings is to recover the regular arrears only with reference to Natesan and not from the petitioner and the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned proceedings. The admitted position being that the impugned proceedings have been made against Mr.Natesan, who is a lessee.

4. It seems doubtful that the present writ petition is maintainable by the petitioner to challenge the said recovery notice, which is directed against 2/4

Mr.Natesan and not the petitioner. In view of the same, the writ petition insofar as seeks to challenge the impugned proceedings is liable to be rejected.

5. The petitioner would then request that his representation dated 24.11.2018 may be considered and orders passed thereon, to which the learned counsel for the respondent does not have any serious objection. In view of the same, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the same, directs the Respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner, dated 24.11.2018 in accordance with law.

6. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13.09.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No sn To The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Agneeswarar Thirukoil, Anthanallur Village and Post, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

3/4

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

sn 13.09.2022 4/4