D. Shanthy Rajan v. The Commissioner Of Hindu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.M.P.(MD)No.17241 of 2024 in REV.APLW(MD)SRNo.60882 of 2024 REV.APLW(MD)SRNo.60882 of 2024 D.Shanthy Rajan ... Petitioner in both cases -vs1.The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Chennai -34.
2.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Aranganatha Swamy Temple, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Srirangam, Trichy - 620 006.
3.The Commissioner, Trichirappalli Municipal Corporation, Trichirapalli.
4.K.J.Bharathi ... Respondents in both cases Prayer : This Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Rule IV Rule 9(4) of AS Rules r/w 151 of CPC to condone the delay of 143 days in filing the 1/5
above Review Application.
Prayer: This Review Application is filed under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to review the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD)No.19511 of 2013, dated 28.02.2024.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Saravanakumar For R1 and R2 :Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU, J, R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
The review applicant/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.19511 of 2013, challenging the lock and seal order passed by the Trichirappalli Municipal Corporation. The Division Bench by order dated 28.02.2024, finding that the challenge made to the very same order by the owner of the subject premises in W.P(MD)No. 15546 of 2013 was dismissed and the writ petitioner is only a tenant, dismissed the writ petition filed by the tenant/review applicant. Seeking to review of the said order, the writ petitioner/tenant has filed this review application with the delay of 143 days in filing. 2/5
2.
In support of the delay, the review applicant has stated that she is aged about 60 years and due to old age disease, she could not contact her advocate and hence, the above delay has occurred. 3.
The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would state that in the light of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition filed by the owner of the property, the Division Bench has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the tenant and therefore, there is no error apparent to review the said order. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the review application. 4.
Heard both sides.
5.Since the writ petition filed by the owner of the property against the very same lock and seal order, was dismissed, the Division Bench has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition of the tenant/review applicant. Thus, we do not find any scope for review. 6.Accordingly, WMP(MD)No.17241 of 2024 is dismissed. 3/5
Consequently, REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.60882 of 2024 is rejected. (J.N.B., J.) (R.V., J.) 03.04.2025 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No cmr To 1.The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Chennai -34.
2.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Aranganatha Swamy Temple, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Srirangam, Trichy - 620 006.
3.The Commissioner, Trichirappalli Municipal Corporation, Trichirapalli.
J. NISHA BANU, J.
R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.
cmr 4/5
W.M.P.(MD)No.17241 of 2024 03.04.2025 5/5