Uncategorized

Temple Since the Heritage Commission is to be constituted – Keeping all matters pending and for reply to be filed by

by Sekar Reporter · February 28, 2026

[28/02, 10:43] sekarreporter1: [27/02, 13:20] B. JAGANNATH Advt: Item 31. Baburayanpettai temple case. Contempt 5 of 2022. B. Jagannath, appeared as Party in person. Arun Natrajan appeared for Respondents Hr and Ce Department. When the matter was taken up for hearing the Respondents stated that Status report has been filed. Petitioner B. Jagannath- stated that the matter has to be placed before the Heritage Commission which is soon to be constituted and had also filed an additional affidavit to that effect. One Mr. TS Venkatesan appeared on behalf of one Impleading Petitioner who claimed to be one of the descendant of the hereditary trustee of the temple and sought for Advocate Commissioners to be appointed. The Respondents opposed the Impleading of the said people claiming as Hereditary Trustees. The Honourable Court opined that in Contempt it is a continuous process which has to be monitored by the Honourable Court. The Respondents highlighted the Order passed on 09.01.2025 and stated that certain portions of the temple had to be removed for reconstruction as they were only following court orders. The same is reflected in the Status report. Petitioner Advocate B. Jagannath stated that in that case he has to file a reply to the Status Report. The Impleading petitioner sought for Impleading which was opposed by Respondents Department and stated that the Counter was also filed. This was declined by the Honourable First Bench. Since the Heritage Commission is to be constituted – Keeping all matters pending and for reply to be filed by Petitioner -B. Jagannath Matter adjourned to two weeks. Impleading not allowed.
[27/02, 13:20] sekarreporter1: 🍁
[27/02, 13:20] sekarreporter1: [27/02, 13:20] B. JAGANNATH Advt: Item 31. Baburayanpettai temple case. Contempt 5 of 2022. B. Jagannath, appeared as Party in person. Arun Natrajan appeared for Respondents Hr and Ce Department. When the matter was taken up for hearing the Respondents stated that Status report has been filed. Petitioner B. Jagannath- stated that the matter has to be placed before the Heritage Commission which is soon to be constituted and had also filed an additional affidavit to that effect. One Mr. TS Venkatesan appeared on behalf of one Impleading Petitioner who claimed to be one of the descendant of the hereditary trustee of the temple and sought for Advocate Commissioners to be appointed. The Respondents opposed the Impleading of the said people claiming as Hereditary Trustees. The Honourable Court opined that in Contempt it is a continuous process which has to be monitored by the Honourable Court. The Respondents highlighted the Order passed on 09.01.2025 and stated that certain portions of the temple had to be removed for reconstruction as they were only following court orders. The same is reflected in the Status report. Petitioner Advocate B. Jagannath stated that in that case he has to file a reply to the Status Report. The Impleading petitioner sought for Impleading which was opposed by Respondents Department and stated that the Counter was also filed. This was declined by the Honourable First Bench. Since the Heritage Commission is to be constituted – Keeping all matters pending and for reply to be filed by Petitioner -B. Jagannath Matter adjourned to two weeks. Impleading not allowed.
[27/02, 13:20] sekarreporter1: 🍁
[28/02, 10:43] Meta AI: ஐட்டம் 31. பாபுராயன்பேட்டை கோயில் வழக்கு. அவமதிப்பு 5/2022. பி. ஜெகந்நாத் தனியாக வாதிட்டார்; அருண் நடராஜன் HR & CE துறைக்காக வாதிட்டார். நிலை அறிக்கை தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்டது. பி. ஜெகந்நாத், விரைவில் அமைக்கப்படும் பாரம்பரியக் கமிஷனுக்கு விஷயம் அனுப்ப வேண்டும் என்று கூடுதல் பிரமாண பத்திரம் தாக்கல் செய்தார். டி.எஸ். வெங்கடேசன், பரம்பரை அறங்காவலரின் வம்சாவளியாகக் கூறும் தலையீட்டு மனுதாரருக்கு வாதிட்டார்; அவோகேட் கமிஷனர் நியமிக்கக் கோரினார். துறை எதிர்த்தது. நீதிமன்றம் அவமதிப்பு தொடர்ச்சியான செயல்முறை என்று கூறியது. 09.01.2025 தீர்ப்பை சுட்டிக்காட்டி, துறை கட்டுமானத்துக்காக கோயிலின் சில பகுதிகளை அகற்றியதாகக் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டது. ஜெகந்நாத் நிலை அறிக்கைக்கு பதில் தாக்கல் செய்யவேண்டும் என்றார். தலையீட்டு மனு நிராகரிக்கப்பட்டது. பாரம்பரியக் கமிஷன் அமைக்கப்படும் வரை அனைத்தும் நிறுத்திவைக்கப்பட்டது; மனுதாரர் பதில் தாக்கல் செய்ய 2 வாரம் அவகாசம்; விசாரணை 2 வாரம் தள்ளிவைக்கப்பட்டது.