Partly allowed

Vetrignaniyar Vagaiyarakkal v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Aug 2014WP(MD)/13619/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court stayed the unilaterally conducted Kumbabishekam festival by respondents 3 and 4. Relying on a civil court decree mandating joint administration of the temple, the Court restrained the respondents from proceeding without mutual consent while an appeal remains pending.

What did the court decide?

The respondents 3 and 4 were restrained from unilaterally conducting the Balasthapatham and Kumbabishekam festival without the consent of the petitioner and the appropriate government officer.

Vetrignaniyar Vagaiyarakkal Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.08.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13619 of 2014

¶7

Vetrignaniyar Vagaiyarakkal Thayathigal Sangam Sivakasi 2/576 Bharathi Nagar, Reserve Line, Sivakasi West, Represented by its President

¶8

... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

3.Tiruthangal Nadar Kottapakkan Vaigaiyara Thayathigal Sangam

¶12

Door No.7 Nadar Pillayar Kovil Street, Thiruthangal Town, Sivakasi Taluk Virudhunagar District.

¶13

4.Chennaivazh Thiruthangal Nadar, Kottapakkan Vaigaiyara Thayathigal Sangam Old No.758 New No.130

¶14

TH Road, New Washermanpet

¶15

Chennai.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to enquire into the petitioner's representation dated 11.08.2014 and consequently restrain the respondents 3 and 4 from conducting the Balasthapatham and Kumbabishekam dated 27.08.2014 or in any other date without the consent of the petitioner as per the order passed by the civil Court.

¶18

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun

¶20

For respondents : Mr.S.Satheeshkumar for R1 & R2 Additional Government Pleader

¶21

Mr.Meenakshi Sundajan for Mr.J.Anandkumar for R3 and R4

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to enquire into the petitioner's representation dated 11.08.2014 and consequently restrain the respondents 3 and 4 from conducting the Balasthapatham and Kumbabishekam dated 27.08.2014 or in any other date without the consent of the petitioner as per the order passed by the civil Court.

¶26

By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

Mr.S.Satheeshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶28

Heard Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the copy of the patta and the order passed in S.A.No.1797 of 1919 on the file of this Court dated 30.10.1920 and submitted that as per the decree, it has been declared that the plaintiffs and defendants are jointly entitled to the plaint properties. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the copy of the patta, which stands in the joint names of Mariyappa Nadar and another. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the civil Court in O.S.No.86 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi dated 31.01.2008 and also referring to the decreetal portion, it is submitted that the decree has been granted, in which the respondents 3 and 4 are the defendants 1 and 2. Further, an order was passed in EP No.25 of 2008 dated 18.01.2010, as against which, a Civil Revision Petition is pending before this Court. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree was passed by the Court, in which it has been clearly held that all persons can administer the Temple only jointly and such other matters. As against which, the respondents 3 and 4 have preferred appeal before the civil Court and the appeal is pending on the file of the Sub Court, Sivakasi, in A.S.No.54 of 2012 and as on the date, the respondents 3 and 4 have not secured any interim order. In the meantime, it has come to the notice of the petitioner Association that the respondents 3 and 4 have unilaterally proceeded to organise of the Kumbabhishekam Festival and such other matters and they have gone to the extent of changing the idol and their action is against the decree passed by the civil Court. In this connection representation has been made to the official respondents and since no action has been taken, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶30

When the case came up for hearing on 19.08.2014, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents. The second respondent has filed the counter affidavit and the respondents 3 and 4 have also filed their counter.

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit and after taking the Court through various civil proceedings submitted that none of the suits deals with the right of administration of the Temple in dispute.

¶32

¶33

Even though it is alleged that the Court has recognised the property rights and enjoyment of writ petitioner Vaigaiyara, title right over the property in dispute more particularly in respect of the temple, they are only with these respondents vaigaiyara for more than a century. Further as regards the decree in O.S.No.59 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif, Virudhunagar, it is submitted that the persons, who were in administration of the respondent society have not prosecuted the suit vigilantly and the said suit came to be decreed on 20.09.2012 and as against the judgment and decree, the respondents 3 and 4 have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivakasi and the same is pending.

¶34

Further by referring to the averments made in paragraph NO.17, it is submitted that one Kamaraj, so far as the petitioner's vaigayara, said that he will get concurrence and such other matters. That apart, by referring paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner is without any basis and as per Agamas and Sastras for performing of Kumbhabishekam procedure have to be complied with and there is no idea for the respondents 3 and 4 to change the idol of the main Deity.

¶35

The learned Additional Government Pleader after referring to the averments made in the affidavit submitted that the second respondent shall take suitable action as may be directed by this Court.

¶36

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, it is prima facie clear that the respondents 3 and 4 are proceeded unilaterally. It may be true that the Kumbabhishekam festival or Balasthapatham or other functions related there to or not been specifically mentioned in the scheme decree. It is not the case of either of the party that the scheme decree arose on account of a problem during the Kumbabhishekam festival or that matter any other festival. Rather, the decree was for a scheme of administration of the temple. In this connection, attention of this Court was invited to Clause X and XI of the decree dated 20.09.2012. From a perusal of the same, it is seen that no person has got exclusive right in the administration of the temple. Further, an appeal is pending before the Sub Court in A.S.No.54 of 2012. The respondents 3 and 4 in the counter affidavit would state that their predecessor in office did not suitably defend the suit. In any event, there is a decree operating, which binds the respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, the question of now unilaterally performing the poojas or function connected with Kumbabhishekam or stating that they have no idea to change the idol of the main deity and only usual procedures are being conducted as per agamasastras, would not be a valid defence for the respondents 3 and 4 in the light of the decree passed by the civil Court.

¶37

Thus, considering the above submission, this Court is of the view that the respondents 3 and 4 should be restrained from proceeding unilaterally with the matter. It is always open to the parties to approach the second respondent for appropriate orders and then, proceed to conduct the festival in accordance with law as per the decree of the civil Court in O.S.No.59 of 2012.

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶41

Sd/Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. +1cc to Mr. A.V.Aurn Advocate in SR.No. 47659 +1cc to Mr. J.Anand Kumar,Advocate in SR.No. 48006. +1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 47810. TS/26.08.2014/4P-6C

¶42

W.P(MD)No.13619 of 2014 25.08.2014

¶43

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

Vetrignaniyar Vagaiyarakkal v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vetrignaniyar Vagaiyarakkal 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

T.Senthurpandian Vs the Deputy Inspector General

Sundaram Vs the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar

L&T Valves Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commercial Tax

M.S.Sithihajeera Vs the Sub Registrar

M. Chandra Sekar Vs the Manonmaniam Sundaranar

Porkodi Vs the Branch Manager