Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.68 seconds)

S.Suresh vs Ut Of Puducherry on 11 November, 2020

Now, Appellant has by and large referred to the Kumbabisegam (consecration) of a recent year as well as that of the year 1999 conducted by the Respondent temple to state that these were funded in crores by the Government. There is no argument or record to suggest that if the averred funding was not received the Respondent temple would struggle to exist. Moreover, in the rejoinder dated 22.11.2019, Respondent office has categorically denied the said allegation and stated that not a single penny was received from the government for the Kumbabisegam and that the same was conducted from the donation of devotees, philanthropists and own funds of the temple. Furthermore, in the rejoinder, Respondent has rightly pointed out that the reliance placed by the Appellant on the judgment dated 11.06.2012 of a Single bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the matter of Prem Anand, Hereditary Trustee Vs The Commissioner, H.R.C.E will not hold ground in view of the Division bench judgment dated 11.03.2011 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the matter of A.C.Bhanunni @ Valluvanattukara vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Dept & Others.
Central Information Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Suresh vs Ut Of Puducherry on 11 November, 2020

Now, Appellant has by and large referred to the Kumbabisegam (consecration) of a recent year as well as that of the year 1999 conducted by the Respondent temple to state that these were funded in crores by the Government. There is no argument or record to suggest that if the averred funding was not received the Respondent temple would struggle to exist. Moreover, in the rejoinder dated 22.11.2019, Respondent office has categorically denied the said allegation and stated that not a single penny was received from the government for the Kumbabisegam and that the same was conducted from the donation of devotees, 7 philanthropists and own funds of the temple. Furthermore, in the rejoinder, Respondent has rightly pointed out that the reliance placed by the Appellant on the judgment dated 11.06.2012 of a Single bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the matter of Prem Anand, Hereditary Trustee Vs The Commissioner, H.R.C.E will not hold ground in view of the Division bench judgment dated 11.03.2011 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the matter of A.C.Bhanunni @ Valluvanattukara vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Dept & Others.
Central Information Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1