Follow:
- Next story Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the substantial issues that arose in common for both the islands have already been answered in Vaamika Island (supra) and therefore it is not inclined to take a different view in these cases. It said:
- Previous story Today click our former judges Akbar ali ,ak rajan.Shanmugam.and advts s duraisamy elango with former cm Valgavalamudan https://t.co/x8BRdT3RYR
Recent Posts
- Vinothpandian: 1998 (1) RCR ( criminal ) 484 : koko vs hassan bano : A binding judicial pronouncement cannot be made ineffective by exercise of legislative power [11/29, 13:06] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) MLJ 644 : sunita vs Rajasthan state transport
- Therefore this Court is directing the parties to act as per the orders that would be passed in SLP(C)No.19553 of 2023 batch and W.P.(C)No.985 of 2023 and until then the respondents are restrained from conducting any training as per the impugned G.O.Ms.No.285, Tourism, Culture and Charitable Department, dated 27.07.2023 and the subsequent proceedings passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.25339/2023 W.2, dated 28.08.2023. 28. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is disposed of in above terms. No Costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 28.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Tmg To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2.The Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruchendur, Tuticorin District. 3.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai-34. S.SRIMATHY, J. Tmg W.P.(MD).No.22347 of 2023 28.11.2023
- https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1729753687566770617?t=OZbp3_S6CzKA7GRh-mTIMw&s=08 Eventhough, it is argued that the Deputy Commissioner (Health) of Chennai Corporation is not an appropriate officer to consider and pass order on the petitioner’s representation, the order reads that it has been passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, and hence, the contention that order has not been passed by the Commissioner of Corporation is liable to be rejected. 15. As discussed supra, the Corporation has also taken possession of the land and constructed the Park and Children Play Area, the Trust is not entitled to claim any relief in the Writ Petition more particularly, seeking the relief for getting planning permission. Hence, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders in favour of the petitioner and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. (S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.) 09.11.2023 ssi Index: Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
- https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1729748332308812069?t=I6mHyUVTtVdJCiH3csW5pg&s=08 The Learned Senior Counsel R. singaravelan appearing for the petitioner relied on Seshammal’s case, wherein it is held “that if any rule is framed by the Government which purports to interfere with the rituals and ceremonies of the temples the same will be liable to be challenged by those who are interested in the temple worship”. In the present case since the respondents are trying to interfere with the Agama under the guise of training, hence the petitioner submitted the same is against the interest of the temple worship. After hearing the submissions on the either side this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue need elaborate hearing, only then it can be considered whether the petitioner’s rights are affected. Hence this Court proceeds to deal with the issues raised by the petitioner.
- https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1729747409054450001?t=G2oIzichRWjMxmtM799EGg&s=08 Appointment of Archaka trainees on the stipend of Rs.8000 in all the HRCE temples is held to be ultra vires and unconstitutional as it goes against their own rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 02.01.2007 and also the Apex Court Judgments in Seshammal Case, Adi Sivachariyar case and other cases of the Division Bench Of Madras High Court. the Hon’ble judge Justice Srimathi has further observed that the same government order in G.O.Ms. no 285 for the appointment of Archaka trainees is challenged in the Apex Court also and the Apex Court has granted an interim order. In view of that the judge said the government is restrained from making any appointment of Archaka trainees in any HR&CE maintained temples totalling more than 44,000 till the final verdict given by the Apex Court. The above order was passed in the Writ filed by Sri Subramania Swami Thirukoil Sundhanthirai Paribalana Sthalatharkal Sabha and one Hariharasubramaniam. On hearing arguments of the senior counsel R.Singaravelan for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the Government and learned Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan for the temple. The detailed order running to 51 pages is uploaded here for the convenience of the Bar and Bench.
More
Recent Posts
- Vinothpandian: 1998 (1) RCR ( criminal ) 484 : koko vs hassan bano : A binding judicial pronouncement cannot be made ineffective by exercise of legislative power [11/29, 13:06] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) MLJ 644 : sunita vs Rajasthan state transport
- Therefore this Court is directing the parties to act as per the orders that would be passed in SLP(C)No.19553 of 2023 batch and W.P.(C)No.985 of 2023 and until then the respondents are restrained from conducting any training as per the impugned G.O.Ms.No.285, Tourism, Culture and Charitable Department, dated 27.07.2023 and the subsequent proceedings passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.25339/2023 W.2, dated 28.08.2023. 28. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is disposed of in above terms. No Costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 28.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Tmg To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2.The Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruchendur, Tuticorin District. 3.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai-34. S.SRIMATHY, J. Tmg W.P.(MD).No.22347 of 2023 28.11.2023
- https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1729753687566770617?t=OZbp3_S6CzKA7GRh-mTIMw&s=08 Eventhough, it is argued that the Deputy Commissioner (Health) of Chennai Corporation is not an appropriate officer to consider and pass order on the petitioner’s representation, the order reads that it has been passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, and hence, the contention that order has not been passed by the Commissioner of Corporation is liable to be rejected. 15. As discussed supra, the Corporation has also taken possession of the land and constructed the Park and Children Play Area, the Trust is not entitled to claim any relief in the Writ Petition more particularly, seeking the relief for getting planning permission. Hence, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders in favour of the petitioner and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. (S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.) 09.11.2023 ssi Index: Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
- https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1729748332308812069?t=I6mHyUVTtVdJCiH3csW5pg&s=08 The Learned Senior Counsel R. singaravelan appearing for the petitioner relied on Seshammal’s case, wherein it is held “that if any rule is framed by the Government which purports to interfere with the rituals and ceremonies of the temples the same will be liable to be challenged by those who are interested in the temple worship”. In the present case since the respondents are trying to interfere with the Agama under the guise of training, hence the petitioner submitted the same is against the interest of the temple worship. After hearing the submissions on the either side this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue need elaborate hearing, only then it can be considered whether the petitioner’s rights are affected. Hence this Court proceeds to deal with the issues raised by the petitioner.
- https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1729747409054450001?t=G2oIzichRWjMxmtM799EGg&s=08 Appointment of Archaka trainees on the stipend of Rs.8000 in all the HRCE temples is held to be ultra vires and unconstitutional as it goes against their own rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 02.01.2007 and also the Apex Court Judgments in Seshammal Case, Adi Sivachariyar case and other cases of the Division Bench Of Madras High Court. the Hon’ble judge Justice Srimathi has further observed that the same government order in G.O.Ms. no 285 for the appointment of Archaka trainees is challenged in the Apex Court also and the Apex Court has granted an interim order. In view of that the judge said the government is restrained from making any appointment of Archaka trainees in any HR&CE maintained temples totalling more than 44,000 till the final verdict given by the Apex Court. The above order was passed in the Writ filed by Sri Subramania Swami Thirukoil Sundhanthirai Paribalana Sthalatharkal Sabha and one Hariharasubramaniam. On hearing arguments of the senior counsel R.Singaravelan for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the Government and learned Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan for the temple. The detailed order running to 51 pages is uploaded here for the convenience of the Bar and Bench.