Nallusamy Nv vs. The Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, N.V.Nallusamy, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department (1st respondent), to dispose of his appeal (A.P.No.9 of 2026). This appeal was filed against an order dated 12.09.2025 by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department (2nd respondent), in O.A.No.13 of 2008. The petitioner also sought to maintain the status quo regarding religious practices at a specific temple. The respondents, including the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner, were represented by the Government Advocate. The third and fourth respondents also took notice. The Government Advocate submitted that the appeal would be disposed of if ample time was granted.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition on the terms that A.P.No.9 of 2026 shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order. The Court clarified that disposal should occur without waiting for the certified copy of the order. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was consequently closed. The parties were informed that they would be entitled to move any interim petition if admissible in accordance with law. The issue of maintaining status quo regarding religious practices was not expressly decided but would likely be addressed during the appeal's disposal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the disposal of the appeal pending before the first respondent, and if so, within what timeframe? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of his appeal, implying a need for timely resolution of the matter. Revenue/State's contention: The Government Advocate for the first and second respondents submitted that the appeal would be disposed of if ample time was granted, indicating their willingness to comply with a reasonable timeline. Respondents 3 & 4 contention: Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 took notice, but no specific arguments were recorded for them regarding the disposal of the appeal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 04.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.4893 of 2026 1.N.V.Nallusamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai Distirct. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Tiruchirapalli District. 3.M.N.Nallu Ambalakarar 4.jayalakshmi
...Respondents Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose the petitioner's appeal vide A.P.No.9 of 2026 filed as against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 12.09.2025 in O.A.No.13 of 2008 within the time frame fixed by this Court and consequently direct the respondents to maintain status quo regarding the religious practice in A/m.Muthumari Amman and Mudali Vinayagar Temple, Uthukuli Village, Marungapuri Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District. 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner :Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan For R1 & R2 :Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, Government Advocate Fo
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.