BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25/03/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.A.(MD) No.101 of 2009 and MP (MD) No.3 of 2009 Krishna Vijayan Hereditary Trustee of A/m. Kannimar Amman Temple Nallampillai, Manapparai, Tiruchirappalli District .. Appellant vs 1.M.Karunanithi 2.The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Nungambakkam, Chennai 34. 3.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Srirengam, Trichy 4.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Pudukkottai 5.The Executive Officer A/m. Rathinagireeswaram Thirukkoil Sivayam Ayyarmalai Kulithalai Taluk Karur District .. Respondents Writ appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 29.1.2009 in WP (MD) No.3468/2008. !For Appellant ... Mr.T.Srinivasaraghavan ^For Respondent ... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
Seeking to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge made in
W.P.(MD) No.3468/2008 dated 29.1.2009, this writ appeal has been brought forth
by the third party.
2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.
3.As could be seen from the submissions made, the first respondent herein
as petitioner filed a writ petition in WP (MD) 3468/2008 seeking a direction to
the respondent authorities to implement the order dated 21.12.1974, in
R.Dis.16371/70 passed by the first respondent therein within the time frame
fixed by this Court. That writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge
as asked for by the petitioner.
4.It is brought to the notice of the Court that there were two trustees
belonging to Arulmighu Kannimar Amman Temple. One of the trustees by name
Sounthapandian filed W.A.(MD) No.68 of 2009 challenging the order passed in WP
(MD) No.3468/2008, and this Court set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge on 19.2.2009. Now, the other trustee, the appellant herein, has brought
forth this appeal.
5.According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, though he is a third
party, he can also have the benefit of the order in the said writ appeal setting
aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
6.Under the stated circumstances, this writ appeal does not require
consideration since the appellant can have the benefit of the said order that
was passed in WA (MD) 68/2009. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
nsv/
To:
1.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowment Department
Nungambakkam, Chennai 34.
2.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowment Department
Srirengam, Trichy
3.The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowment Department
Pudukkottai
4.The Executive Officer
A/m. Rathinagireeswaram Thirukkoil
Sivayam Ayyarmalai
Kulithalai Taluk
Karur District