Disposed

N.Bhojan v. The Collector of the

Madras HC11 Jan 2016WP/32366/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition challenging an order rejecting prayers for worship at the Sri Madheswarar Temple due to a dispute. Withholding no vested right to conduct specific poojas, the court directed the Tahsildar to convene a peace committee to allow general public worship within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Respondent 3 directed to convene a peace committee for general public worship within two weeks.

N.Bhojan Vs The Collector of the — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.01.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.32366 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

N.Bhojan 2. S.Raman 3. T.Jaganathan 4. B.Nanja Gowder 5. B.Rajan 6. R.Kasinathan 7. G.Stalin 8. B.Karnan 9. N.Sivakumar 10. K.B.Manoharan 11. S.Premchand 12. L.Krishnan 13. R.Arjunan 14. T.Siddharthan 15. S.Dharman 16. R.Abimanyu 17. R.Eswaran 18. R.Bharani 19. S.Murugan 20. K.Chandran 21. Ramesh 22. S.Sankaran 23. M.Kullappan 24. N.Sivalingam 25. T.Krishnan 26. B.S.Belli 27. R.Raju 28. N.Chandran .. Petitioners - Vs -

¶7

The Collector of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris – 643 001, 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor, The Nilgiris, 3. The Tahsildar, Udhagamandalam Taluk, The Nilgiris – 643 001,

¶8

N.B.Luman https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

K.Bhojraj

¶10

O.S.Krishnan .. Respondents

¶11

Respondents No.4 to 6 are impleaded as per Order dated 30.1.2015 in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.32366 of 2014.

¶12

Prayer:- Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Order in N.K.P1 No.2503 of 2014 dated 31.7.2014 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioners herein and all persons residing/living in Kuruthukkuli village to worship and offer prayers at Sri Madheswarar Temple situated at Kuruthukkuli village during the performance of pooja in the months of February and July every year beginning from 2015.

¶13

Petitioners : Mr.T.R.Sathiyamohan For Respondents : Mr.R.A.S.Senthilvel, Addl.Govt.Pleader for RR.1 to 3 Mr.S.K.Ragunathan for RR.4 to 6 O R D E R

¶14

There appears to be two parties, which created a dispute over the conduct of offering prayers to the Sri Madheswarar Temple situated at Kuruthukkuli village. This has occasioned convening of a peace committee meeting. As there was no compromise arrived between two groups, the request made for prayers was rejected. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that without any basis the order impugned has been passed, that too, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners. It is further submitted that what the petitioners want is to offer prayers.

¶16

Learned Additional Government Pleader, based upon the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, submitted that the dispute between two groups could not be resolved even pursuant to the interim order passed. The meeting was adjourned to the second week of February, 2015 and thereafter there was no progress.

¶17

Neither the petitioners nor the private respondents do not have a vested right with respect to the conduct of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ poojas. Coming to the offering of the prayers, the same will

¶18

have to be permitted by the respondents by taking into consideration of the prevailing situation, particularly, in the point of view of the law and order. Moreover, more than 1 ½ years have lapsed. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to convene a peace committee meeting between the two groups and make all endeavours to see that the general public are able to offer their prayers as against the right to perform pooja. The said exercise will have to be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CO)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
usk
To
1. The Collector of the Nilgiris,
Udhagamandalam,
The Nilgiris – 643 001,
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coonoor,
The Nilgiris,
3. The Tahsildar,
Udhagamandalam Taluk,
The Nilgiris – 643 001,
1 cc to Mr.T.R. Sathiyamohan, Advocate, Sr. 2011
1 cc to Mr.S.K. Rakhumathan, Advocate, Sr. 2164
1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 2241

¶20

W.P.No.32366 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 GJ (CO) kk 27/1

¶21

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

N.Bhojan v. The Collector of the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Bhojan v. The Collector of the

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.Saruvagan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

V.Sakthi Vs The District Collector

R.N.Durai, Vs The Inspector of Police (L&O)

N.Periasamy Vs State Rep. by Inspector of

C.Ongali Vs The District Revenue Officer

M.Damodaran Vs The District Collector