Disposed

P.Selvakumar v. The District Collector

Madras HC19 Jan 2017WP/31258/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, Panchayat members of Sri Balamurugan Temple, sought directions to prevent respondent 7 from interfering in temple administration. The Court noted allegations of communal conflict but dismissed the specific membership claims without final adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Collector to investigate alleged interference and hooliganism within one month.

P.Selvakumar Vs The District Collector — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.31258 of 2016

¶6

P.Selvakumar 2. C.Subbarayan @ Moorthy 3. N.Pachaiyappan 4. T.Kandavel @ Shanmugam 5. K.Ilango 6. P.Parivallal 7. S.Venkatesan ... Petitioners vs.

¶7

The District Collector, Puducherry District, Vazhudavur Road, Goundampalayam, Puducherry - 605009.

¶8

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Law & Order, Puducherry.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police (East), Puducherry.

¶10

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (North), Puducherry.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Oulgaret Taluk, Lawspet, Puducherry-8.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Kalapet Police Station, Puducherry.

¶13

A. Joseph ... Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 6 to take appropriate action against the 7th respondent by forbearing him from interfering with the management and administration of Sri Balamurugan Temple, Periyakalapet, Puducherry by considering the representations

¶15

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

¶16

dated 08.02.2016, 16.07.2016, 05.08.2016 and 17.08.2016 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioners :Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, for Ms.A.Shanthi

¶18

For Respondents 1 to 6 :Mr.J.Kumaran,

¶19

Government Advocate (Pondy)

¶20

For 7th Respondent :Mr.B.Balavijayan

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners, who are the Panchayat members of Sri Balamurugan Temple in Periyakalapet, Puducherry are before this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to take appropriate action against the 7th respondent by forbearing him from interfering with the management and administration of Sri Balamurugan Temple, on consideration of their representations dated 08.02.2016, 16.07.2016, 05.08.2016 and 17.08.2016.

¶23

According to the petitioners, Sri Balamurugan Temple is a very famous and ancient Temple managed by the Villagers through Ten Panchayat members, who are native and permanent residents of Periyakalapet Village. The said Panchayat members are elected from among the Villagers in rotation every year. It is their further case that the 7th respondent, who is a Christian by faith, meddles with the affairs of the Temple. On one occasion, when the Panchayat members were offering the Temple festival invitation to the presiding deity, the 7th respondent came to the Temple with his henchmen and abused the Panchayat members for printing the invitation without his permission.

¶24

On yet another occasion, when the Villagers met to select new Panchayat members and to fix dates for various Temple festivals, the 7th respondent created a ruckus and threatened the Villagers to select him as a Panchayat member. Hence, a case was registered in M.C.No.43/2016 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and the same was dealt with by the 4th respondent/Sub-Divisional Magistrate (North), by directing the 7th respondent not to enter the Sri Balamurugan Temple premises and not to meddle with the affairs of the Temple. In spite of the said direction, the 7th respondent along with his henchmen arranged a meeting inside the Temple premises and declared himself to be a Panchayat member of Sri Balamurugan Temple. The Villagers came to know about the alleged meeting and self-proclamation only when the 7th respondent started to interfere in the affairs of the Temple, including daily poojas. Hence, this petition.

¶25

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

¶26

Though this Writ Petition was listed on many occasions and time was granted to the 7th respondent to file his counter, till date, he has not filed counter.

¶27

But, today, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent contended that the petitioners herein are not the present Panchayat members and that their period of membership is over. Refuting the allegation against the 7th respondent, learned counsel submitted that the 7th respondent is a Christian by faith and his wife is a Hindu and he is only helping the Temple. Further, he denied the allegation that the 7th respondent had put up huge cut-outs in the Temple vicinity on 02.01.2017, which was his birthday.

¶28

Learned Government Advocate (Pondy) contended that both the petitioners as well as the 7th respondent are loggerheads and that necessary action will be taken against both the groups. He also contended that huge cut-outs were put up by the 7th respondent near the Temple and a complaint in that regard was lodged with the Lieutenant Governor, Puducherry on 02.01.2017.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

For better understanding of the case, the order passed by the 4th respondent/Sub-Divisional Magistrate (North), Puducherry, in M.C.No.43/2016 on 01.05.2016 under Section 107 Cr.P.C., wherein the 1st petitioner herein and the 7th respondent herein are parties, is extracted hereunder :

¶31

''Two Counter Petitioners of ''A'' party are political cadres and sympathizers of N.R. Congress party and ''B'' party counter petitioners are political cadres and sympathizers of All India Congress Party and they are the prominent persons who were very active persons participating in all the important political functions and temple festivals in the Periyakalapet area. Due to their political differences, often they were lodging allegations/counter allegations/petitions against each other before the Police and various offices and authorities which often leads to serious law and order problem in the Periakalapet area which is thereby causing panic in the minds of general public in and around area of Kalapet P.S. limit. Hence, there is a possibility that the counter petitioners of both parties may likely to cause breach of peace during the general assembly election.

¶32

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

¶33

You are therefore summoned to appear before this Court in person at the Office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (North), Revenue Complex, Saram, Puducherry on 10.05.2016 at 3.30 p.m. to show cause as to why you should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.20,000/- with a surety for a like sum to keeping peace for a period of six months or such other period as may be decided by the undersigned on merits of your behaviour and the situation prevailing in the area from time to time.''

¶34

Though the prayer in the Writ Petition is for a limited extent, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that such hooliganism cannot be allowed to take place inside the Temple or in the Temple administration. Also, the 7th respondent has not stated that he is following Hinduism. Hence, this Court directs the 1st respondent/District Collector, Puducherry to immediately investigate into this issue and take appropriate action against the erring persons, be it the petitioners or the 7th respondent, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.27133 of 2016 is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar aeb To: 1. The District Collector, Puducherry District, Vazhudavur Road, Goundampalayam, Puducherry - 605009.

¶36

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

¶37

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Law & Order, Puducherry.

¶38

The Superintendent of Police (East), Puducherry.

¶39

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (North), Puducherry.

¶40

The Tahsildar, Oulgaret Taluk, Lawspet, Puducherry-8.

¶41

The Inspector of Police, Kalapet Police Station, Puducherry.

¶42

+1cc to M/S.A.Shanthi, Advocate Sr.3724 +1cc to Mr.B.Balavijayan, Advocate Sr.3730 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.3754 W.P.No.31258 of 2016

¶43

rsy[co] srg 25/01/2017

¶44

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

P.Selvakumar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Selvakumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.Harimurugesan Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Sree Saraswathi Mills Ltd. Vs The Tahsildar

R.Sundaramoorthy Vs The District Collector

T.Ramanathan, Vs The Secretary

Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga Vs Commissioner of Labour

C.Thamizh Maran, Vs The Inspector General of