IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 19.11. 2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.NO. 29335 OF 2004 ...... P. Velmurugan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.A. Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai.34. 2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramanian Sami Thirukoil, Sivanmalai, Erode District. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to delete the column in the application of marriage "Signature of the Gurukkal, who performed the marriage" in the 2nd respondent temple and also direct the first respondent to initiate departmental proceedings against the second respondent from insisting on payment of Rs.2,500/- for solemnization of each marriage other than the prescribed fee. For Petitioner : Mr. V. Elangovan For Respondent No.1 : Mr. V. Manoharan Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. M. Sundar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER This writ petition has been filed to issue a direction the respondents to delete the column in the application of marriage "Signature of the Gurukkal, who performs the marriage" in the 2nd respondent temple and also direct the first respondent to initiate departmental proceedings against the second respondent, who insists payment of Rs.2,500/- for solemnization of each marriage other than the prescribed fee. 2. According to the petitioner, several marriages are conducted in the temple premises. As per the official receipt, a sum of Rs.10/- alone has to be collected for the solemnization of the marriage, whereas, at the instances of the second respondent, a sum of Rs.2500/- is collected, for which, no receipt is given. The further complaint of the petitioner is that the Executive Officer directs the parties to go before a particular Gurukkal, stating that he alone should perform the marriage. Petitioner's grievance is that the collection of higher amount and the direction that the marriage should be performed with the help of the particular Archagar is an arbitrary and unreasonable condition imposed by the department. It is stated that no receipt is given for the excess amount, which is collected. In this regard, a specific complaint has been given by the petitioner/Advocate to the first respondent/H.R.& C.E. Department on 22.6.2004. The said representation has not been considered and there is no response to the said letter. 3. A counter has been filed stating that a sum of Rs.10/- is taken towards application fee and for performance of marriage Rs.100/- is collected and a receipt is issued for the same. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition stating that the entire case of the petitioner is misconceived. The first respondent has adopted the counter filed. 4. The response of the department is only after issuance of notice by this Court in a writ petition admitted on 11.10.2004. In respect of the representation given by the Advocate, who is the petitioner herein, the first respondent has not chosen to reply to the said letter, which shows the gross indifference to the representation made by the writ petitioner on a specific complaint as stated above. The first respondent ought to have taken up the matter seriously when it has been pointed out by a member of the Bar, setting out the complaint in detail. The said representation and letter should have been responded by the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., who is the administrative head of the department. Having failed to do so, they have taken a different stand in the counter affidavit, which is an after thought. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Taking into consideration the contention of the respondents in the counter affidavit, the first respondent is directed to enquire into the matter considering the representation of the petitioner for remedial action or orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ra Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.A. Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai.34. 2. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramanian Sami Thirukoil, Sivanmalai,Erode District. + 1 cc to Mr. S. Doraisami, Advocate SR No.62690 + 1 cc to Mr. M. Sundar, Advocate SR No.62546 RSM(CO) SR/2.12.09 WP No. 29335 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/