Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

E.RAJENDIRAN versus COMMISSIONER

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


E.Rajendiran v. Commissioner - W.P. No.28330 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 2946 (10 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.09.2007

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM

W.P. Nos.28330 and 29130 of 2005

WPMP. No.30834 and 31953 of 2005

AND

WVMP. No.2210 of 2005

1. E.Rajendiran

2. E.Jayaraman

3. A.Paramasivam

4. A.Manickam

5. A.Rajamani ..Petitioners in both W.P.s Vs.

1. The Commissioner

HR and CE Admn. Dept.

Chennai 34.

2. The Executive Officer

A/M Madanagopalswamy temple

Madurai.

3. The Joint Commissioner

HR and CE

Madurai.

4. V.Nagarajan

Main Road

Madakulam

Madurai 3.

5. M.M.Karuppiah

Muthiah Naicker Street

Madakulam

Madurai 3.

6. V.K.D.Udayakumar

Middle Street

Madakulam

Madurai 3. ..Respondents in both W.P.s. Petitions filed under Article 226 f the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari as stated within.

For petitioners : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran For Respondents 4 to 6 : Mr.W.C.Thiruvengadam O R D E R



This order shall govern these two W.Ps. whereby the petitioners challenged the order of impleadment of respondents 4 to 6 by the the first respondent made in I.A.No.1 of 2005 in R.P.No.236 of 2005, while the other is to quash the order of the first respondent vacating the stay granted in favour of the petitioners in R.P.No.236 of 2005.

2. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. Concededly , the petitioners who are five in numbers along with one Selvam were declared as Hereditary Trustees of the Arulmigu Edadi Iyyanar temple situate at Madakulam Village, Madurai South Taluk by the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, Madurai in the year 1982 was subsequently confirmed by the first respondent in his appeal. While they were functioning so, the third respondent Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Madurai by order dated 30.3.2005 bearing No.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2938/2005/A1 framed ten charges against four of them and following the same, he suspended all of them from acting as Hereditary trustees. They filed revision petition before the first respondent challenging the order of suspension, pending enquiry. At the initial stage, stay was granted as to the operation of the order of suspension made by the thrid respondent. While, RP.No.236/05 was pending, the respondents 4 to 6 made an application to implead them as parties to the proceedings. An order was passed by the first respondent adding them as parties to the revision petitioner. Following the same, the stay originally granted by the first respondent was vacated. Aggrieved petitioners have brought forth these two writ petitions before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in short would submit that pending the proceedings initiated by the third respondent against these petitioners, charges were levelled against them and they were suspended, even there was no prima facie case, which necessitated the petitioners to file the revision in R.P.No.236/05 before the first respondent. In view of the circumstances, found that the reasons for granting stay were genuine. Under such circumstances, the stay should not have been vacated. The learned counsel would further add that in so far as impleadment of respondents 4 to 6 was concerned, they were not at all partie to be heard for the simple reasont that proceedings which were pending in the hands of the third respondent was between the department and the petitioners, that too, as to the diciplinary proceedings. Under the circumstances, the respondents 4 to 6 have no say in the matter and hence the impleadment petition should have been dismissed and thus both the writ petitions have got to be ordered.

5. The Court heard th learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 on the above contentions who made sincere attempt and submitted that the order of the first respondent has got to be sustained.

6. The Court heard the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6.

7. According to the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6, the impleadment application was ordered by the first respondent rightly and respondents 4 to 6 filed an application along with the affidavit where they have clearly stated that they were worshippers of the temple and they are interested in the affairs of the temple administration and thus they are interested parties and apart from that, it is brought to the notice of the first respondent that petitioners were making attempts to alienate the properties belonging to the temple. They have already alienated a piece of property measuring 94 cents belonging to the temple in question and hence they were to be added as parties and the first respondent found that though petitioners are claimed to be the hereditary trustees, considering the reasons adduced, found if fit to add them as parties and accordingly, the application was ordered. Added further the learned counsel that when the piece of land was sold and attempts were made by these petitioners to sell away the other parts of the lands, the first respondent thought it fit to vacate the stay already granted. Hence, both the writ petitions have got to be dismissed.

8. The Court paid its anxious consideration of the submissions made and also looked into the materials available on record, in particular the order under challenge. After doing so, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court has no other option than to dismiss both the writ petitions. It is not in controversy that the petitioners who are 5 in numer alogn with one Selvam were declared as Hereditary trustees of the temple in question and the said order was also confirmed by the appelalte forum. While they were functioning as hereditary trustees, charges were levelled against them. Pursuant to the same, the third respondent kept them under suspension. They also preferred revision in R.P.No.236/2005 whereby originally the first respondent has granted stay of the operation. But, these respondents 4 to 6 filed application for impleadment stating that they are worshippers and they were interested in the affairs of the temple administration and hence they have to be impleaded. In so far as impleadment was concerned, petitioners 4 to 6, so long as they are able to urge before the forum that they are worshippers and they are interested int he affairs of the temple and they are interested parties to be heard, there cannot be any doubt about that. Hence, the first writ petition(W.P.No.28330 of 2005) challenging the order of impleadment fails and the same is dismissed.

9. In so far as the second writ petition(W.P.No.29130 of 2005) is concerned, respondents 4 to 6 brought to the notice of the first respondent, Commissioner that taking advantage of the stay originally granted by the first respondent, they have sold a piece of land and they are attempting to sell the other parts of the properties of the temple in question. Under such circumstances, the Commissioner, HR & CE was perfectly correct in vacating he stay granted. Hence, no quetion of challenging the same would arise. Irresistable conclusion can be that both the writ petitions do not carry merit whatsoever. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the revision in RP.No.236/05 within a period of eight weeks here from and it is made clear that the observation made by this Court will not prevail upont the first respondent in passing orders on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, WP.MP.NO..30834 & 31953 of 2005 and WV.MP.NO.2210 OF 2005 are also dismissed.

Vjy

To

1. The Commissioner

HR & CE Admn. Dept.

Chennai 34.

2. The Executive Officer

A/M Madanagopalswamy temple

Madurai.

3. The Joint Commissioner

HR & CE

Madurai.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.