VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2023 › High Court of Madras

G. Sharmile, v. The Commissioner,

DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
9 March 2023
Bench
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthyauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 6802/2016

Judgment

O R D E R Learned counsel for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and learned counsel for the Executive Officer of the relevant temple submit that the petitioner was evicted by following due process of law, therefore, it is submitted that nothing survives for adjudication. By taking note of the above submissions, W.P.(MD).No.6802 of 2016 is dismissed as infructuous without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD).No.5857 of 2016 is closed.

09.03.2023 NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No sbn To

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Endowments Department, Thanjavur.

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Brahmasira Kandeeswara Temple, Kandiyur, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District. W.P.(Mi)No.6802oofo2016 SENTHILKUMARoRAMAMOORTHY,oJ. sbn W.P.(MD)No.6802oofo2016 and W.M.P.(MD).No.5857oofo2016

09.03.2023 Pageo4oofo4

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :09.03.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and W.M.P.(MD).No.5857 of 2016 G.Sharmile ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Endowments Department, Thanjavur. 3.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Brahmasira Kandeeswara Temple, Kandiyur, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.14379/2015 E1 dated 18.03.2016 issued by the second respondent in respect of property in S.No. 17/5A, measuring 0.05. house site situated in Kandiyur and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent reconsider the request of petitioner for regularization of tenancy agreement. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Manikandan For Respondents :Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 :Mr.V.Chandrasekar for R3

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.