Madras High Court
S.Sivarama Chettiar vs Commissioner on 21 June, 2021
W.A.No.1155 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.1155 of 2021
1.S.Sivarama Chettiar
2.T.Kuppusamy Chettiar
3.C.Kumaravelu Chettiar
(cause title accepted vide order
of the court dated 22.10.19
made in CMP No.22489/19
in WA Sr.No.40810/11) .. Appellant
Vs
1.Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
HR&CE Department,
Vellore - 9.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
HR&CE Department,
Kanchipuram.
4.P.M.Vedamurthy,
Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Katchabeswaran Temple,
Kanchipuram. .. Respondents
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1155 of 2021
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 28.07.2009 made in W.P.No.6282 of 2009.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Sr.Counsel
for Mr.R.Mubarak Basha
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arumugam,
Government Counsel
for R1 to R3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
The appeal lies in a very narrow compass. Though the challenge
before the learned Single Judge was to the appointment of Executive
Officer, the Fit Person was appointed in the year 2008. Though the writ
petition filed challenging the appointment of Fit Person was allowed,
the writ petition filed challenging the appointment of Executive Officer
was declined by going into the Scheme framed by this Court in
A.S.No.319 of 1920 dated 08.02.1922. More over, there is also a suit
filed in O.S.No.119 of 2012 on 29.06.2012.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that the learned Single Judge is not correct in interpreting
the Scheme. There is a comprehensive suit filed, which is pending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1155 of 2021
consideration. Therefore, considering the above, the order requires
interference.
3. The facts that there was a Scheme and the comprehensive
suit having been filed in O.S.No.119 of 2012 are not in dispute. In the
event of a final decision being made in the suit, the appointment of
Executive Officer, will become a consequential one. Therefore, we are
of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge, particularly, in
paragraph 8 and 9 will not have any bearing on the pending suit.
4. In such view of the matter, we direct the Sub-Court,
Kanchipuram, to dispose of the pending suit in O.S.No.119 of 2012
without being influenced by any of the observations made by the
learned single Judge in W.P.No.6282 of 2009. Taking into consideration
the fact that the suit is pending for more than eight years, the learned
Sub Judge, Kanchipuram is directed to dispose of the same within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment and report the same before this Court. As more than a
decade has elapsed from the date of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, we do not propose to interfere with the order of the
appointment of the Executive Officer at this stage.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1155 of 2021
5. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
21.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
1.The Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
HR&CE Department,
Vellore - 9.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
HR&CE Department,
Kanchipuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1155 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.1155 of 2021
21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
