![Sekarreporter: 1 W.A.No.1652 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.10405 of 2021 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J. AND KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J. [Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.] Mr.R.Neelagandan, learned State Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. 2. The challenge in this intra-Court Appeal is to a direction given by the learned Single Judge on 06.07.2021, wherein, during the hearing of the Writ Petitions, a doubt was raised, for which, the learned Government Counsel, who appeared before the Court,](http://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story [12/31, 13:06] Sekarreporter 1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/%e0%ae%ae%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%b5%e0%ae%9f%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%9f-%e0%ae%a8%e0%af%80%e0%ae%a4%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%aa%e0%ae%a4%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%95%e0%ae%b3%e0%af%8d-%e0%ae%a4%e0%af%87%e0%ae%b0%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%b5%e0%af%81/ [12/31, 13:07] Sekarreporter 1: மாவட்ட நீதிபதிகள் தேர்வுக்கு பிற்படுத்தப்பட்ட, மிகவும் பிற்படுத்தப்பட்ட மற்றும் சீர்மரபினருக்கு வயது வரம்பு சலுகை மறுக்கப்பட்டதை எதிர்த்த வழக்கில் தமிழக அரசும், உயர் நீதிமன்ற பதிவுத்துறையும் பதிலளிக்க சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.s Vaithiyanathan j and pt asha j order notice case posted January 2nd
- Previous story CIVILJUDGE ⚫Main exam coaching classes will be taken.Chandru law acadamy
Recent Posts
- [11/29, 14:07] sekarreporter1: செங்கல்வராயன் அறக்கட்டளைக்கு முன்னாள் நீதிபதி கலையரசன் நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளார் இதற்கான அரசாணை தமிழக அரசு பிறப்பித்துள்ளது [11/29, 14:07] sekarreporter1: 👍
- 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.
More
Recent Posts
- [11/29, 14:07] sekarreporter1: செங்கல்வராயன் அறக்கட்டளைக்கு முன்னாள் நீதிபதி கலையரசன் நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளார் இதற்கான அரசாணை தமிழக அரசு பிறப்பித்துள்ளது [11/29, 14:07] sekarreporter1: 👍
- 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.