Partly allowed

M.Jeevanandam Poosari, v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Sept 2014WP(MD)/11051/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal of permission to hold a temple festival and a review application modifying a previous order. The Court ordered the formation of a peace committee to allow worship while preventing administration interference and ensuring non-clashing festival dates.

What did the court decide?

Order modified to permit worship under conditions; Writ Petition disposed with direction to convene a peace committee to resolve date clashes and prevent interference.

M.Jeevanandam Poosari, Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.09.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.11051 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 and Rev. Apl.(MD) No.33 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 & 3 of 2014

¶7

M.Jeevanandam Poosari

¶8

... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11051 of 2014 & R1 in Rev. Apl.(MD) No.33 of 2014

¶9

P.Ganesan Ambalakarar Village Administrator Sathamangalam Village

¶10

... Petitioner in Rev. Apl.(MD) No.33 of 2014 R7 in W.P.(MD) No.11051 of 2014

¶11

vs.

¶12

1.The District Collector Madurai District, Madurai

¶13

2.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate -cum-Revenue Divisional Officer O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer Madurai District, Madurai

¶14

3.The Tahsildar Melur Taluk Madurai District

¶15

4.The Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Mela Chithirai Veethi Madurai District, Madurai-1

¶16

5.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police Madurai District, Madurai

¶17

6.The Inspector of Police O/o.The Inspector of Police Melur Taluk, Madurai District ... Respondents 1 to 6 in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.(MD) No.11051 of 2014 & Respondents 2 to 7 in Rev. Apl.(MD) No.33 of 2014

¶18

¶19

Prayer (W.P.(MD) No.11051 of 2014): Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.100/14/MC, dated 02.07.2014, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction directing the respondents 1 to 6 to permit the petitioner and his villagers to celebrate the Arulmigu Ponnandi Amman Temple festival proposed to be conducted on 07.07.2014 to 17.07.2014 or on any other suitable time period at Sathamangalam Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶20

Prayer (Rev. Apl.(MD) No.33 of 2014): Petition filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.8960 of 2014, dated 06.06.2014.

¶21

Prayer in WP(MD)No.8960/2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos.1 to 5 to allow the petitioner and his villagers to participate in the temple festival in Sri Hariharaputhira Satha Ayyanar Temple scheduled to be held on 09.06.2014 and 10.06.2014 at Sathamangalam Village, Thaniamangalam Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District .

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.11051 of 2014:

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, A.G.P., for R1 to R6 Mr.Veera Kathiravan for Mr.K.Mahendran for R7

¶25

Rev. Apl.(MD) No.33 of 2014:

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan

¶27

for Mr.K.Mahendran for R1

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for R1 Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, A.G.P., for R2 to R7

¶29

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶30

Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 6 W.P.(MD) No.11051 of 2014 and respondent 2 to 7 in Rev. Apl.(MD) No.33 of 2014, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel, takes notice for the first respondent in Rev. Apl.(MD) No.33 of 2014 and Mr.K.Mahendran, learned counsel, takes notice for the seventh respondent in W.P.(MD) No.11051 of 2014. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition as well as the review application are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶31

2. Since the disputes involved in both the writ petition as well as the review application relate to temple festivals, though they are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ different temples, they have been clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

¶32

¶33

3. Review Application (MD) No.33 of 2014 has been filed to review the order, dated 06.06.2014, passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.8960 of 2014. The portion by which the review petitioner being aggrieved is the directions contained in paragraph No.4 of the said Order. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court passed the following order:

¶34

“4.Considering the averments made in the writ petition and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 03.06.2014, and pass appropriate orders permitting the petitioner's community people to participate in the Temple Festival scheduled to be held on 09.06.2014 and 10.06.2014, and provide adequate police protection. The respondents 4 to 6 shall ensure that no untoward incident would occur.”

¶35

4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the review petitioner has no objection to the directions issued to consider the writ petitioner's representation, but only object the direction stating that his community people should be permitted to participate in the temple festival. It is submitted that by term 'participation' having been used in the order, it would amount to interfering with the rights of the administration of the temple, which has already been settled by way of a scheme framed in O.A.No.44 of 1978, by the Deputy Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., Department, dated 08.05.1979.

¶36

5. Further, it is submitted that a suit in O.S.No.211 of 1986, was also filed by the review petitioner, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, in which the father of the writ petitioner Mr.Munnodi, was the first defendant and a decree has been passed restraining the defendants from interfering with the conduct of the temple festival and the administration of the temple. Further, it is submitted that during previous years, a peace committee meeting was convened and a decision was taken on 12.06.2013 and the review petitioner is agreeable that if a similar decision is taken this year also, he and his community people have got no objection for worshipping during the temple festival.

¶37

6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the apprehension of the petitioner and his community people is that they would be prevented from worshiping the deity during the festival and at no point of time, they have not claimed any right of the temple administration and they are willing and ready to accept the similar conditions, which were imposed during the previous year.

¶38

7. In the light of the limited controversy involved and taking note of the fact that the right to administration has already been settled by way of a scheme, the review petitioner has made out a case for issuing certain modifications in the said order. Accordingly, the paragraph No.4 of the Order, dated 06.06.2014, passed in W.P.(MD) No.8960 of 2014 shall stand modified as under:

¶39

The representation of the writ petitioner shall be considered and the writ petitioner and his community people shall be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ permitted to worship the deity during the temple festival, by imposing the conditions as imposed in the proceedings, dated 12.06.2013.

¶40

¶41

8. W.P.(MD) No.11051 of 2014 has been filed challenging the order, dated 02.07.2014, passed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to permit the petitioner and his villagers to celebrate the Arulmigu Ponnandi Amman Temple festival proposed to be conducted on 07.07.2014 to 17.07.2014 or on any other suitable time period at Sathamangalam Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. By the said impugned order, the second respondent refused to grant permission for the temple festival since there was a clash of dates and there is likelihood of problem in that area and that apart review application was pending before this Court.

¶42

9. Since the said review application has been disposed of with the above direction, the second respondent in W.P.(MD) No.11051 of 2014 is directed to consider the petitioner's request by convening a peace committee, wherein there should be a condition that the persons of the other community namely Mr.P.Ganesa Ambalakarar and others should not be prevented from worshipping during the temple festival and at the same time the right of the writ petitioner namely Mr.M.Jeevanandam Poosari and his community people to conduct the temple festival should not be interfered by the other community. In this regard, a separate peace committee meeting shall be convened for both the temples. Furthermore, the second respondent shall ensure that the dates of the temple festivals do not clash and by consent of the both parties the temple festivals shall be conducted on different dates.

¶43

10. With the above observations, both the writ petition and the review petition are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶44

Sd/ Assistant Registrar(AE) / True Copy /

¶45

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶46

krk To:

¶47

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶48

2.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate -cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶49

3.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶50

4.The Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, Mela Chithirai Veethi, Madurai District, Madurai-1. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶51

¶52

5.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶53

6.The Inspector of Police, O/o.The Inspector of Police, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶54

+1CC to Mr.P.Mahendran,Advocate in SR.No. 50802

¶55

+1CC to Mr.T.Lajapathi Ray, Advocate in SR.No. 50820

¶56

W.P.(MD) No.11051 of 2014 and Rev. Apl.(MD) No.33 of 2014 09.09.2014

¶57

rg.10.09.2014 5p.9c.

¶58

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Jeevanandam Poosari, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jeevanandam Poosari, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Surya Moorthy Vs the Corporation Commissioner

Nizar Mohamed Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Kanagaraj Samuvel Vs the District Registrar

S.Kavitha Vs State Represented by

M. Arumugam Vs the Superintendnet of

Sri Joythi Petro Product Vs the Assistant Commissioner