IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 2.11.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22289 OF 2009 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2009 M. Sekar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner H.R. & C.E., Nungambakkam High Road Chennai – 600 034. 2. Murthy ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to evict the second respondent from the premises at Door No.18, Vaidhiyar Kandappa Pillai Street, Choolai, Chennai-600 112. For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Sampath for M/s. T.K.Sampath Associates For Respondent No.1: Ms. M.Sneha, Government Advocate O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by R. Banumathi, J.) This Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to evict the second respondent-Murthy from the premises at Door No.18, Vaidhiyar Kandappa Pillai Street, Choolai, Chennai-600 112. 2. "Arulmigu Srinivasa Perumal Temple" is managed by the Secretary and Thakkar and is under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. One Mr.Jayaraman was running the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ shop as a tenant in the space belonging to the Temple. Presently, the said Jayaraman is not running the shop. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent-Murthy has encroached upon the shop and running the shop without the permission of the management of the Temple and hence, notice has been sent cancelling the tenancy. In this regard, petitioner is said to have made a representation on 28.12.2007 to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his representation, no steps had been taken to remove the illegal occupation of the second respondent. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate submitted that already steps had been taken under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act to remove the encroachment. 5. From the averments made in the affidavit, it is seen that the trustees of the Temple have filed O.S.No.6585 of 2006 against the said Jayaraman and others, restraining them from proceeding with unauthorised conversion and construction work in the Temple. The said suit is said to have been disposed of. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that as such, there is no legal impediment for proceeding with the eviction proceedings. 6. Having regard to the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to expedite the eviction proceedings initiated against the second respondent, after giving notice to the second respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment otherwise. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kb https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Commissioner H.R. & C.E., Nungambakkam High Road Chennai – 600 034. +1 cc to Mr.T.K.Sampath, Advocate, SR.No.58811 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.58131 W.P.No.22289 of 2009 MRD {CO} TP/10.11.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/