1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P(MD)No.8156 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Jegdheesh .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 2. The President, Thirupananthal Kosimutt, Kasi Muthu Kumarasamy, Thambiram Samigal, Thanjavur District. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Registration Office, Kottaram, Kanyakumari District. 4. Mrs.T.Neela .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned sale deed bearing document P.311/1998 and 3027/1998, dated 12.08.1998, on the file of the third respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohamed Asif For Respondents : Mr.TR.Janarthanam Additional Government Pleader, for R.1 to R.3 : No Appearance for R.4 O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned sale deed bearing document P.311/1998 and 3027/1998, dated 12.08.1998, on the file of the third respondent and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Heard Mr.N.Mohamed Asif, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner challenges the sale deed executed by the second respondent to a third person and the said person settled the property in favour of the fourth respondent contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Hence, the writ petition is filed for the above stated relief. The writ petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner, without even approaching the competent authority, has filed this writ petition to quash the sale deed of the year 1998 and settlement deed of the year 2005. The writ petition has been filed bypassing the effective alternative remedies available to the petitioner under the relevant statutes. 5. In any event, as stated by the petitioner, permission of the first respondent has to be obtain. The petitioner should therefore have approached the first respondent instead of rushing to this Court by way of writ petition. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 2. The President, Thirupananthal Kosimutt, Kasi Muthu Kumarasamy, Thambiram Samigal, Thanjavur District. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Registration Office, Kottaram, Kanyakumari District. +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 24451 ssl ssk/05.08.2011 /5c -2p/- W.P(MD)No.8156 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 22.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/