Sivaraj Mohan vs the Commissioner

Sivaraj Mohan vs The Commissioner

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 17, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1915376

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1915376
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Decided On: Apr 17, 2025
Case Number: WP/13817/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sivaraj Mohan

Respondent

The Commissioner

Excerpt

.....consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.04.2025.2. upon hearing, mr.c.uma shankar the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner wants to become a tenant under the temple.3. when the matter came up for hearing, mr.n.r.r.arunnatarajan, learned special government pleader would submit that the temple is not willing to take them as a tenant in fact the entire property of the temple is being given to other department for putting up an integrated police complex for rent that is fixed by the commissioner in exercise of his statutory power.4. therefore, the prayer in the writ petition cannot becountenanced. alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's premises have suddenly been sealed and therefore, let it be opened.5. in reply thereof, the learned special government pleaderwould submit that already eviction proceedings were taken by following the due process of law under section 78 of the hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959 and orders have been passed on 10.03.2025 in mp.no.39 of 2022.6. therefore, when possession has been taken by following the due process of law, keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to challenge theorder of eviction in the manner known to law, the prayers made by thepetitioner cannot be countenanced in the writ petition, this writ petition stands disposed of. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 17.04.2025 neutral citation : no dna to 1.the commissioner nungambakkam high road, chennai. 2.the joint commissioner 3.the assistant commissioner 4.the executive officer arulmigu somanathaswamy temple sannithi street, kolathur chennai 600 099.d.bharatha chakravarthy, j.dna and w.m.p.nos.15516 & 15518 of 2025 17.04.2025

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.Nos.15516 & 15518 of 2025 Sivaraj Mohan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. 2.The Joint Commissioner 3.The Assistant Commissioner 4.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Somanathaswamy Temple Sannithi Street, Kolathur Chennai 600 099. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or any other order or direction or any way or in the form of writ to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.04.2025 within a stipulated period so as to de-seal the petitioner's shop at No.4, MGR Street, Annai Satya Nagar, Red Hills Road, Kolathur, Chennai 600 099 and grant such other suitable orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Umashankar For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.04.2025.

2. Upon hearing, Mr.C.Uma Shankar the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner wants to become a tenant under the temple.

3. When the matter came up for hearing, Mr.N.R.R.Arun

Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the temple is not willing to take them as a tenant in fact the entire property of the temple is being given to other department for putting up an integrated police complex for rent that is fixed by the commissioner in exercise of his statutory power.

4. Therefore, the prayer in the Writ Petition cannot be

countenanced. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's premises have suddenly been sealed and therefore, let it be opened.

5. In reply thereof, the learned Special Government Pleader

would submit that already eviction proceedings were taken by following the due process of law under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and orders have been passed on 10.03.2025 in MP.No.39 of 2022.

6. Therefore, when possession has been taken by following the due process of law, keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the

order of eviction in the manner known to law, the prayers made by the

petitioner cannot be countenanced in the Writ Petition, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 17.04.2025 Neutral Citation : No dna To 1.The Commissioner Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. 2.The Joint Commissioner 3.The Assistant Commissioner 4.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Somanathaswamy Temple Sannithi Street, Kolathur Chennai 600 099.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

dna and W.M.P.Nos.15516 & 15518 of 2025 17.04.2025

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2025 Same Parties Sivaraj Mohan vs The Commissioner Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy