IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Sathish Kumar, M.Jothiraman, JJ
Thangamuthu Pillai – Appellant
Versus
R.Athimoolam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to unilateral scheme modification without notice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court mandate to ensure procedural compliance via proper appellate review. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed these present writ appeals.
2.The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that an appeal had already been filed before the Commissioner in A.P.No.15 of 2024, directed that status quo be maintained. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants have preferred these present appeals.
3. The main contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that the original scheme was settled in the year 1982. Trustees were to be selected from five communities of Keela Theru Village. According to the appellants, these communites had been managing the temple for several years.
While such practice was continuing, another community belonging to a different place filed O.A.No.9 of 2021 seeking modification of the scheme. By order dated 07.03.2024, the Joint Commissioner modified the scheme by excluding the Konar Community and in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.