SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE STATE OF TAMILNADU – Appellant
Versus
K.SHAMUGAVEL MUDALIYAR – Respondent
CRP 1123/2014



Advocates:
['SPL GOVT PLEADER CS', '', 'V SRIMATHI', 'M/S SAI BHARATH ILAN', '', 'FOR SOLE RESPONDENT', 'H KARTHIK SESHADRI', 'ELIZABETH SESHADRI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated :19.02.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Civil Revision Petition No.1123 of 2014

and M.P.No.1 of 2014

and

Crl.O.P.No.8674 of 2014

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

rep.by the Secretary to Government,

Tamil Nadu Development and Religious

Endowment Information Department,

Fort St.George,

Chennai 600 009.

2.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowment Administration Department,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 034.

3.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowment Administration Department,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 034.

.. Petitioners in

C.R.P.No.1123 of 2014

K.Shanmughavel Mudaliar

.. Petitioner in

Crl.O.P.No.8674 of 2017

/versus/

K.Shanmugavel Mudaliyar

.. Respondent in

C.R.P.No.1123 of 2014

1.The Commissioner of Police,

Grater Chennai Police,

Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Pallavaram, Chennai-43.

3.The Inspector of Police,

S-6, Shankar Nagar Police Station,

Pammal, Chennai-75.

.. Respondents in

Crl.O.P.No.8674 of 2017

Prayer in C.R.P.No.1123 of 2014:

Civil Revision Petition has

been filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the

judgment and decree dated 10.07.2012 made in I.A.No.363 of 2011

in O.S.No.118 of 2009 on the file of Additional District Munsif,

Alandur.

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.8674 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition has

been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to pass an

order directing the third respondent to provide police

protection to the functioning as Managing Hereditary Trustee to

the petitioner temples and his life and limb for the enforcement

of appropriate civil Court decree made in O.S.No.118 of 2009

District Munsif Court at Alandur in respect of decree and

judgment on 05.11.2009 & *26.6.2014 in Pozhichallur Village,

Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Chennai 600 074 by

considering petitioner's complaint dated 05.02.2017.

For Petitioners

:Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan,

Spl.G.P.(CS)

(CRP No.1123 of 2014)

Mr.T.Sai Krishnan

(Crl.O.P.No.8674 of 2017)

For Respondents

:Mr.T.SaiKrishnan for

M/S.Sai Bharath & Ilan

(CRP.No.1123 of 2014)

Ms.P.Kritika Kamal, GA

(Crl.O.P.No.8674 of 2017)

COMMON ORDER

It is a classic case, where pedantic interpretation of

law leading to undue delay without decision on merit.

2.K.Shanmugavel Mudaliyar, who was appointed as

hereditary trustee by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment

Department (in short “HR & CE”) of Arulmighu Agastheeswarar

Temple and its Allied temples, was later found unfit by the HR &

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

CE Department. So, he was removed from the said post. Aggrieved

by the same, he has preferred a statutory appeal before the

Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department. However, he lost his

appeal.

3. Meanwhile, he has thought fit that the temple, which

was managed and administrated by the petitioner's forefathers,

does not come within the purview of HR & CE Act. He has laid a

suit in O.S.No.118 of 2009 against HR & CE Department arraying

the Secretary to the Government, HR & CE Department as the first

defendant, the Commissioner, HR & CE Department as the second

defendant and the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department as the

third defendant. In the said suit, he has prayed for declaration

that the plaintiff's temple situated in the residential place

Grama Natham S.No.210/2 as private land and not coming under the

purview of the HR & CE Act and for permanent injunction

restraining the third defendant and their subordinates from

conducting any enquiry initiate by the third defendant against

the plaintiff, till the character of institution is decided in

the suit.

4. The defendants have not filed their written

statement within the time prescribed under the statute.

Therefore, the trial Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top