SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P. No.20099 of 2020 B.Sukumar 1 லட்சம் அபராதம் for HRnc officials judge Anitha sumanth. For Petitioner            : Mr.S.Natarajan For Respondents       :  Mr.TNC.Kaushik Government Advocate for R1 & R2 No Appearance for R3, R4 & R6 Mr.Venkatesh for Mr.V.Raghupathi for R7 O R D E R

by · Published · Updated

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.06.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

W.P. No.20099 of 2020

B.Sukumar

… Petitioner

Vs

1.The Commissioner,

HR & CE.,

No.110, Uthamar Gandhi Road,    Chennai – 600 034.

2.The Executive Officer,

Admin Office: Arulmigu Sokkavel,

Subramaniya Thirukoil,

Angala Parameswari,

Kasi Viswanathar Thirukoil,    No.5, South Mada Street, Choolai,    Chennai 600 007.

3.Tmt.P.Yasodha

4.Mr.A.Arunachalam

5.M.A.Velayudham (Died)

6.Mr.A.Murugesan

7.Mr.P.V.Nithyanandam

 (R7 Substitued in the place of M.A.Velayudham  (R5) (Died)  as per order dated 21.06.2021 in WMP. No.13756 of 2021)

… Respondents

PRAYER : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 28.09.2020 sent to the 2nd respondent.

For Petitioner            : Mr.S.Natarajan

For Respondents       :  Mr.TNC.Kaushik

Government Advocate for R1 & R2

No Appearance for R3, R4 & R6

Mr.Venkatesh for

Mr.V.Raghupathi for R7

O R D E R

Heard Mr.S.Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.TNC.Kaushik, learned Government Advocate for R1 and R2 and Mr.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for Mr.V.Raghupathi, learned counsel for R7.   Though service is complete on R3, R4 and R6 and the name of the learned counsel is printed in the cause list, there is no appearance on their behalf.

  1. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department/R1 to consider his representation dated 28.09.2020 sent to the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sokkavel Subramaniya Thirukoil, Angala Parameswari, Kasi

Viswanathar Thirukoil,  No.5, South Mada Street, Choolai, Chennai 600

007./R2 (temple/temple in question) and pass orders in that regard.

  1. The subject matter of the representation, which is also the subjectmatter of the present Writ Petition, is that the properties of the temple bearing Door Nos.8, 19/1, 19/2 and 20 standing at Subba Naidu Street, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112 have been allotted to the private respondents, Door No.8, allotted to P.Yasodha, 3rd Respondent herein, Door No.19/1, alloted to A.Arunachalam, 4th respondent herein, Door No.19/2, allotted to A.Velayudha mudaliar (Died) 5th respondent herein and Door No.20, allotted to A.Murugesan.
  2. The petitioner alleges that the private respondents have not been remitting rents to the temple. Thus, since he is an erstwhile trustee and also for the reason that he is interested in the welfare of the temple, he has applied under Right to Information Act and obtained particulars in regard to the rental arrears.
  3. I desist from referring to the details of the rents payable for the reason that in the status report filed by the second respondent, the position that the private respondents are in arrears of rent is not in dispute. It is thus an admitted position that the private respondents are wilful defaulters.  Learned counsel for the HR & CE Department also confirms that proceedings in terms of Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (in short ‘Act’) have been initiated against the erring tenants that are in progress.
  4. Admittedly progress has been slowdown on account of the on-goingCOVID -19 pandemic. However, the authorities are expected to take action as expeditiously as possible in regard to the Section 78 proceedings in accordance with all Standard Operating Procedures and Regulations applicable.
  5. In the light of the allowance of the substitution petition in WMP

No.13756 of 2021, the Executive Officer of the temple in question shall issue Section 78 notice afresh to the legal heirs of R5 and proceedings conducted in accordance with law.

  1. The Executive Officer will specifically examine whether all lessees, including the legal heirs of R5, have any privity of contract qua themselves and temple authorities and whether the arrangement is in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act and a finding should be given in this regard in the order to be passed under Section 78 of the Act.
  2. With the aforesaid direction, nothing further survives in this Writ Petition, as the mandamus sought for stands achieved. The Writ Petition stands closed.  No costs.
  3. List on 21.09.2021 for reporting compliance.

21.06.2021 sl

Index:Yes/No speaking/non-speaking order To

1.The Commissioner,

HR & CE.,    No.110, Uthamar Gandhi Road,    Chennai – 600 034.

2.The Executive Officer,

Admin Office: Arulmigu Sokkavel,

Subramaniya Thirukoil,

Angala Parameswari,

Kasi Viswanathar Thirukoil,    No.5, South Mada Street, Choolai,    Chennai 600 007.

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

Sl

W.P. No.20099 of 2020

21.06.2021

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.06.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

W.P. No.20099 of 2020

B.Sukumar

… Petitioner

Vs

1.The Commissioner,

HR & CE.,

No.110, Uthamar Gandhi Road,    Chennai – 600 034.

2.The Executive Officer,

Admin Office: Arulmigu Sokkavel,

Subramaniya Thirukoil,

Angala Parameswari,

Kasi Viswanathar Thirukoil,    No.5, South Mada Street, Choolai,    Chennai 600 007.

3.Tmt.P.Yasodha

4.Mr.A.Arunachalam

5.M.A.Velayudham (Died)

6.Mr.A.Murugesan

7.Mr.P.V.Nithyanandam

 (R7 Substitued in the place of M.A.Velayudham  (R5) (Died)  as per order dated 21.06.2021 in WMP. No.13756 of 2021)

… Respondents

PRAYER : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 28.09.2020 sent to the 2nd respondent.

For Petitioner            : Mr.S.Natarajan

For Respondents       :  Mr.TNC.Kaushik

Government Advocate for R1 & R2

No Appearance for R3, R4 & R6

Mr.Venkatesh for

Mr.V.Raghupathi for R7

O R D E R

Heard Mr.S.Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.TNC.Kaushik, learned Government Advocate for R1 and R2 and Mr.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for Mr.V.Raghupathi, learned counsel for R7.   Though service is complete on R3, R4 and R6 and the name of the learned counsel is printed in the cause list, there is no appearance on their behalf.

  1. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department/R1 to consider his representation dated 28.09.2020 sent to the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sokkavel Subramaniya Thirukoil, Angala Parameswari, Kasi

Viswanathar Thirukoil,  No.5, South Mada Street, Choolai, Chennai 600

007./R2 (temple/temple in question) and pass orders in that regard.

  1. The subject matter of the representation, which is also the subjectmatter of the present Writ Petition, is that the properties of the temple bearing Door Nos.8, 19/1, 19/2 and 20 standing at Subba Naidu Street, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112 have been allotted to the private respondents, Door No.8, allotted to P.Yasodha, 3rd Respondent herein, Door No.19/1, alloted to A.Arunachalam, 4th respondent herein, Door No.19/2, allotted to A.Velayudha mudaliar (Died) 5th respondent herein and Door No.20, allotted to A.Murugesan.
  2. The petitioner alleges that the private respondents have not been remitting rents to the temple. Thus, since he is an erstwhile trustee and also for the reason that he is interested in the welfare of the temple, he has applied under Right to Information Act and obtained particulars in regard to the rental arrears.
  3. I desist from referring to the details of the rents payable for the reason that in the status report filed by the second respondent, the position that the private respondents are in arrears of rent is not in dispute. It is thus an admitted position that the private respondents are wilful defaulters.  Learned counsel for the HR & CE Department also confirms that proceedings in terms of Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (in short ‘Act’) have been initiated against the erring tenants that are in progress.
  4. Admittedly progress has been slowdown on account of the on-goingCOVID -19 pandemic. However, the authorities are expected to take action as expeditiously as possible in regard to the Section 78 proceedings in accordance with all Standard Operating Procedures and Regulations applicable.
  5. In the light of the allowance of the substitution petition in WMP

No.13756 of 2021, the Executive Officer of the temple in question shall issue Section 78 notice afresh to the legal heirs of R5 and proceedings conducted in accordance with law.

  1. The Executive Officer will specifically examine whether all lessees, including the legal heirs of R5, have any privity of contract qua themselves and temple authorities and whether the arrangement is in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act and a finding should be given in this regard in the order to be passed under Section 78 of the Act.
  2. With the aforesaid direction, nothing further survives in this Writ Petition, as the mandamus sought for stands achieved. The Writ Petition stands closed.  No costs.
  3. List on 21.09.2021 for reporting compliance.

21.06.2021 sl

Index:Yes/No speaking/non-speaking order To

1.The Commissioner,

HR & CE.,    No.110, Uthamar Gandhi Road,    Chennai – 600 034.

2.The Executive Officer,

Admin Office: Arulmigu Sokkavel,

Subramaniya Thirukoil,

Angala Parameswari,

Kasi Viswanathar Thirukoil,    No.5, South Mada Street, Choolai,    Chennai 600 007.

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

Sl

W.P. No.20099 of 2020

21.06.2021

 

நீதிமன்ற அவமதிப்பு வழக்கில் இந்து சமய அறநிலையத்துறை ஆணையருக்கு ஒரு லட்சம் ரூபாய் அபராதம் விதித்து சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.

சென்னை சூளையில் உள்ள அருள்மிகு சொக்கவேல் சுப்பிரமணியர் திருக்கோவிலுக்கு சொந்தமான சொத்துக்களை குத்தகைக்கு எடுத்த தனி நபர்கள், நீண்ட காலம் வாடகை செலுத்தாமல் இருப்பதாகக் கூறி சென்னை சூளையைச் சேர்ந்த சுகுமார் என்பவர் உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் வழக்கு தொடர்ந்திருந்தார்.

இந்த வழக்கு விசாரணையின் போது, சம்பந்தப்பட்ட தனிநபர்களுக்கு எதிராக அறநிலையத்துறை சட்டத்தின் கீழ் நடவடிக்கை துவங்கப்பட்டுள்ளதாக அறநிலையத்துறை தரப்பில் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டது.

இதை பதிவு செய்து கொண்ட நீதிபதி, நடவடிக்கையை விரைவுபடுத்த கடந்த 2021 ம் ஆண்டு ஜூன் மாதம் உத்தரவு பிறப்பித்து இருந்தார்.

இந்த உத்தரவை அமல்படுத்தவில்லை என்று சுகுமார் நீதிமன்ற அவமதிப்பு வழக்கை தாக்கல் செய்திருந்தார்.

இந்த வழக்கில், அறநிலையத்துறை உதவி ஆணையர் தாக்கல் செய்த அறிக்கையில், கோவில் சொத்தை குத்தகைக்கு எடுத்திருந்த தனி நபர்களுக்கு எதிராக விசாரணை துவங்கப்பட்டுள்ளதாகவும், வேண்டுமென்றே நீதிமன்றத்தை உத்தரவை அவமதிக்கும் எண்ணம் ஏதும் இல்லை என்றும் குறிப்பிட்டிருந்தார்.

இந்த வழக்கை விசாரித்த நீதிபதி அனிதா சுமந்த், நீதிமன்ற உத்தரவை அமல்படுத்துவதற்கு ஏற்பட்ட கால தாமதத்திற்கான காரணங்களை உதவி ஆணையர் தனது அறிக்கையில் தெரிவிக்கவில்லை என்றும், நீதிமன்ற உத்தரவை அமல்படுத்தாதது குறித்து உதவி ஆணையர் வருத்தம் தெரிவிக்காத நடவடிக்கையை ஏற்றுக் கொள்ள முடியாது என்றும் கூறி , இந்து சமய அறநிலையத்துறை ஆணையருக்கு ஒரு லட்சம் ரூபாயும், உதவி ஆணையர் மற்றும் இணை ஆணையர்களுக்கு தலா 50 ஆயிரம் ரூபாயும் அபராதம் விதித்து உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார்.

இந்த அபராத தொகையை இரண்டு வாரங்களில் சென்னை அடையாறு புற்றுநோய் மருத்துவமனைக்கு வழங்க வேண்டும் என்றும் நீதிபதி உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார்.

 

 

 

 

You may also like...