AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We do not appreciate the endeavour of the petitioner of filing this writ petition, the same counsel having withdrawn a petition before the learned Single Judge which is almost verbatim the same except that in the other petition the trust was the petitioner, while in the present case the priest of the temple is the petitioner.
The earlier petition was withdrawn unconditionally and thus there is no question of entertaining the present petition.
We also fail to appreciate the concern of the petitioner in view of the observation made in paragraph (5) of the order dated 7.7.2014 made in W.P.No.28285 of 2013, which reads as under: "5. In view of the above, we deem it fit to direct the second respondent to take appropriate steps in the manner known to law insofar as finding an alternative site. Till such time, the fifth respondent is permitted to have the temple in the very same place. The second respondent is also directed to take appropriate steps on the request of the fifth respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, the petitioner is protected till such time as the alternative site is made available by the second respondent/ Commissioner, HR & CE Department.
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the HR & CE Department however states that the allotment would have to be made by the tenth respondent/Tahsildar and the eighth respondent/Commissioner, Attur Municipality.
This is a matter the HR & CE Department should take up with the Tahsildar and the Commissioner, Attur Municipality, as it is an issue between the two government departments. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.3452 of 2017 is closed.