1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P(MD)No.7376 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 L.Arumugam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Trivandraum Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Thirucourtalanatha Swamy Devasthanam, Courtallam, Tirunelveli District. 4.The District Collector, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents (R4 impleaded as party respondent as per the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 19.07.2011) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 3rd Respondent from auctioning the pathway property situated at Survey No.482/13, North Sannathi Street, Courtalam, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District as vacant site Nos.1 and 2 so as to put shops. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For 3rd Respondent : Mr.S.Manohar For 4th Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ORDER (Order of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.) This Writ Petition as a public interest litigation is filed, seeking a writ of mandamus to forbear the 3rd respondent from auctioning the pathway situated at Survey No.482/13, North Sannathi Street, Courtalam, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District as vacant site Nos.1 and 2. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in year 1995, by the proceedings dated 14.10.1995, the second respondent has sent a communication to one N.Ragupathi stating that the place which has been proposed to be auctioned for the purpose of putting shops could not used for that purpose alleging that if the same is auctioned, the road will not be used by the general public. The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition after sending a representation on 29.06.2011. 3. At the time of entertaining the Writ Petition we issued a direction to the respondent No.4, who has been impleaded as party respondent as per the order dated 19.07.2011, asking him to file a status report as to the steps taken for providing facilities to the general public visiting the place of Courtallam. Accordingly, a report has been filed by the 4t respondent in and by his proceedings dated 05.08.2011, the details regarding the steps taken and to be taken for the development of Courtallam are provided. 4. We have seen from the report a detailed scheme has been formulated by the respondent No.4 for the development of Courtallam. In the said report, it has been stated that sanction has been granted for the following projects: t. vz;. tUlk; jpl;lj;jpd; bgah; kjpg;gPL (U. yl;rk;) 1. 2. 3. 2006 - 07 rl;lkd;w cWg;gpdh; bjhFjp Bkk;ghl;L jpl;lk; 2.50 bts;s epthuzj; jpl;lk; 6.00 12-tJ epjpf;FG khd;ak; 2.10 2006-07 bkhj;jk; 10.60 1. 2. 3. 4. 2007 - 08 Rw;Wyh tsh;r;rp jpl;lk; 88.00 rl;lkd;w cWg;gpdh; bjhFjp Bkk;ghl;L jpl;lk; 5.60 12-tJ epjpf;FG khd;ak; 3.20 bghJ epjp 33.40 2007-08 bkhj;jk; 10.60 1. 2. 3. 2008 - 09 rl;lkd;w cWg;gpdh; bjhFjp Bkk;ghl;L jpl;lk; 0.60 12-tJ epjpf;FG khd;ak; 1.50 bghJ epjp 31.81 2008-09 bkhj;jk; 33.91 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 1. 2. 3. 4 2009- 10 rl;lkd;w cWg;gpdh; bjhFjp Bkk;ghl;L jpl;lk; 0.50 Bkw;F bjhlh;r;rp kiy mgptpUj;jp jpl;lk; 2.80 jplf;fHpt[ Bkyhz;ik jpl;lk; (jkpH;ehL khR fl;Lg;ghl;L thhpak;) 1.00 12-tJ epjpf;FG khd;ak; 1.43 5. 6. 7. Rw;Wyh tsh;r;rp jpl;lk; 398.25 eghh;L jpl;lk; 39.50 bghJ epjp 8.00 2009-10 bkhj;jk; 451.48 1. 2. 3. 4. 2010 - 11 rpwg;g[ rhiyfs; jpl;lk; 111.07 midj;J BgUuhl;rp mz;zh kWkyh;r;rp jpl;lk; 61.00 rl;lkd;w cWg;gpdh; bjhFjp Bkk;ghl;L jpl;lk; 0.50 bghJ epjp 17.00 2010-2011 bkhj;jk; 189.57 bgU bkhj;jk; 815.76 On a perusal of the report we are also satisfied that appropriate steps are being taken and also contemplated further for the development of Courtallam. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 stating that there is no bonafide in the Writ Petition filed. A decision has been taken by the respondent No.1, permitting the third respondent to lease out the property by public auction and hence the 3rd respondent published auction notice dated 14.06.2011, fixing auction date as 29.06.2011 after giving due publicity. Objections has been raised by one Regupathy and Kathiresan. The said Regupathy is an adjacent occupier. Considering the nature of objections, the 3rd respondent also filed caveate before the jurisdictional Sub Court. It has been further stated in the counter that the proceedings dated 09.06.1995, in fact was sent by the second respondent to the said N.Ragupathy, who was running a hotel by name Srinivasa Vilas Hotel. 6. We have to be satisfied as to how the copy of the proceedings dated 09.06.1995, which has been sent to the said N.Ragupathy, who has got his personal interest, being the adjacent occupier came to the hand of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said N.Ragupathy was one of a person, who is having objections and he has been agitating his right along with the petitioner and other persons. 7. We are not satisfied by the reply given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the said N.Ragupathy has got personal interest, the explanation given by the petitioner cannot be accepted, more so, the writ petition has been given momentum by sending a representation dated 29.06.2011. Further, the petitioner is a resident of Tenkasi. 8. In the counter affidavit of respondent No.3, it has been stated that encroachments are being removed and in that place only the shops are to be located and sufficient space have been earmarked for the purpose of pathway The petitioner has not made any steps to remove the encroachments, which has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 been there for several decades and therefore, we are of the view that there is no bonafide in the Writ Petition and we are also satisfied with the steps taken by respondent No.4 in the development of Courtallam. Hence, this Writ Petition is devoid of any merits. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Trivandraum Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Thirucourtalanatha Swamy Devasthanam, Courtallam, Tirunelveli District. 4.The District Collector, Tirunelveli. +1cc to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate SR.No.27800 +1cc to The Special Government Pleader SR.No.27795 sj akm/07.09.11 /4p-7c/ W.P(MD)No.7376 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 12.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/