Disposed

P.K.Murugesan, v. the Thasildar

Madras HC3 Sept 2014WP(MD)/14332/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that customary rights regarding festival conduct cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition and directed the first respondent to convene a peace committee to resolve the issue peacefully, dismissing the plea for immediate police protection.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to convene a peace committee in the presence of the police to resolve the dispute regarding the festival conduct.

P.K.Murugesan, Vs the Thasildar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.09.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P(MD)No.14332 of 2014

¶7

P.K.Murugesan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Tahsildar, Srirangam Trichy District. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Police, Srirangam, Trichy District. 3. The Inspector of police, Devasthanam Pettaivaithalai Police Station, Srirangam Taluk Trichy District. 4. P.M.Sivaraja Gurukkal 5. Aundiappan 6. Periyasamy ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1^st respondent dated 01.07.2014 and quash the same and direct the 3^rd respondent to give police protection for conducting of Perunthiruvizha in A/m.Somakaliamman Temple, Devasthanam, Pettaivaithalai, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District. For Petitioner : Ms.J.Anandavalli For respondents : Mr.V.Pandi for R1 to 3 Government Advocate Mr.M.Suresh for R4 Mr.S.C.Herold Singh for R5 and R6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the 1^st respondent dated 01.07.2014 and consequentially direct the 3^rd respondent to give police protection for conducting of Perunthiruvizha in A/m.Somakaliamman Temple, Devasthanam, Pettaivaithalai, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

¶11

According to the petitioner, he is the committee member of the petitioner's community and the challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the first respondent. In the said order, till a peace committee is conducted, the parties are directed to maintain peace. But till date, there was no peace committee is conducted and hence, the festival also could not be conducted.

¶12

The private respondent filed counter affidavit. The *Petitioner inviting attention of this Court to the resolution passed on 25.05.2014, in which, the 5^th respondent Aundiappan as well as the 4^th respondent signed the minutes of the meeting. Therefore, it is stated that it is highly improper to prevent the *Petitioner to conduct the festival in the manner as conducted in the previous years. This Court is of the view that the customary rights cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition nor the Tahsildar can change any customary right said to be claimed by the private respondents namely 5 and 6.

¶13

If at all they have got any such customary right, they have to approach the competent forum, such as the civil Court. In any event, the festival is scheduled to be commenced today (03.09.2014) and hence, there will be a direction to the first respondent to convene a peace committee meeting in the presence of the third respondent by calling upon the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 to 6 and other persons in the village to attend the peace committee meeting and resolve the issue, so that the festival shall be conducted in a peaceful and calm manner. The learned Additional Government Pleader is directed to communicate this order before 01.30 p.m..

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(C.O.,)

¶16

*(Amended as per the order of this Court dated 22.09.2014)

¶17

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

¶18

/True Copy/

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

¶22

(To be substituted for the order already despatched on dated 04.09.2014)

¶23

The Tahsildar, Srirangam, Trichy District.

¶24

The Joint Commissioner of Police, Srirangam, Trichy District.

¶25

The Inspector of police, Devasthanam Pettaivaithalai Police Station, Srirangam Taluk Trichy District.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.J.Anandhavalli, Advocate, in SR. No.49638.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate, in SR. No.49695.

¶28

W.P(MD)No.14332 of 2014

¶29

03.09.2014

¶30

¶31

msm 03.09.2014 p3/6c SR : 09.10.2014 : 3p/6c

¶32

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

P.K.Murugesan, v. the Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Murugesan, v. the Thasildar

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

G.Vigneshwaran, Vs the Branch Manager

M. Veetayan, Vs the Inspector General of

P.Muthurakku, Vs the Chief Secretary

Tmt.S. Kasthuri, Vs the Senior Divisional Retail

Kasi Reddiyar Vs the Panchayat President

Gopal, Vs the District Collector