R LAKSHMI NARASIMHA BHATTAR ETC Vs. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Lakshmi Narasimha Bhattar is the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5943 of 2011 and in Review Application (MD)No.53 of 2011. In W.P.(MD)No.9202 of 2011, his son Senthamarai Kannan Bhattar is the petitioner. In the other two writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(MD)Nos.9263 and 9447 of 2011, both father and son have jointly filed the same.

(2.) Initially, the review application filed by the Lakshmi Narasimha Bhattar came up before this court with a condone delay application in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 to condone the delay of 552 days in filing the review application. In the condone delay application, notice was ordered to the respondent on 8.6.2011. Subsequently when the matter came up after notice on 23.11.2011, this court condoned the delay after an earlier notice to the standing counsel for the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE-cum-Executive Officer, the Additional Government Pleader for the Commissioner HR&CE and for one Singaperumal Uthamanambi, S/o Sadagopa Chariyar (third respondent), for whom notice was taken by Mr.D.Rajagopal. In view of the long standing dispute between the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay was condoned and the review application was directed to be numbered. It was at this stage, the counsel for the temple management informed that the very same petitioner and his son have filed four other writ petitions and wanted those matters also to be taken up for hearing. They were directed to be posted along with the review application after the same was numbered.

(3.) Except W.P.(MD)No.5943 of 2011, the other three writ petitions were on notice on admission stages. As per the roster arrangement, these matters were to be posted only before this Court. Even when W.P.(MD)No.9447 of 2011 came before V.Ramasubrmanian, J., he directed all the matters grouped together and to be posted along with the review application which was then at a SR stage. Since both parties have agreed to argue all matters and when they were listed for final hearing on 03.12.2011, the counsel for the petitioner Ms.J.Anandhavalli requested for being specifically adjourned to 08.12.2011 as she had engaged a senior counsel. Therefore, the matter as per her request was adjourned to 08.12.2011.