Disposed

M.Manikandan v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Jul 2017WP(MD)/13447/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging separate utensil usage and barring SC participation in temple festival. Court found no untouchability practice but ordered removal of separate utensils by festival managers. Dismissed participation plea as civil matter. Directed authorities to ensure peaceful festival conduct.

What did the court decide?

Festival managers directed to dispense with separate utensils and store prasad in common vessels. Authorities directed to ensure peaceful conduct.

M.Manikandan Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.07.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.13447 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.10515 of 2017

¶8

M.Manikandan .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Collector, Madurai,

¶11

Madurai District.

¶12

2.The Superintendent of Police,

¶13

Office of the Superintendent of Police,

¶14

Madurai District.

¶15

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomatchikulam,

¶16

Madurai District.

¶17

4.Thasildar,

¶18

Madurai North,

¶19

Madurai District.

¶20

5.The Inspector of Police, Oomatchikulam Police Station,

¶21

Madurai District.

¶22

6.Arul Selvam

¶23

7.Ragupathi .. Respondents

¶24

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to make effective steps to allow the Schedule Caste people to participate in the Mulaipari Function in Arulmigu Chellayee Amman Temple, Veerapandi, Thirumalpuram Post, Madurai District.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan

¶26

For R1 to R5 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader.

¶27

¶28

ORDER [Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.]

¶29

This writ petition has been filed for directing the official respondents 1 to 5 to take effective steps to allow the Schedule Caste people to participate in the Mulaipari function in Arulmigu Chellayee Amman Temple, Veerapandi, Thirumalpuram Post, Madurai District.

¶30

2.When the matter was taken up on 20.07.2017, we directed the fifth respondent to ensure the presence of the respondents 6 and 7 and also the writ petitioner.

¶31

3.Today, the fifth respondent-R.Esthar-the Inspector of Police, Oomatchikulam Police Station, the sixth respondent-Arul Selvam, Seventh respondent-Ragupathi, festival Managers and the writ petitioner-M.Manikandan are present before this Court.

¶32

4.We enquired all the parties. We are satisfied that there is no practice of untouchability. This is because the prasadham and viboodhi are given by a person, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community and this is received by all the devotees.

¶33

5.However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner expressed his grievance regarding maintenance of separate utensil (mz;lh) in which prasadham is distributed. The festival managers agreed to dispense with the said separate utensil (mz;lh) system. Hereafter, prasadham will be stored in common utensils and distributed therefrom.

¶34

6.The writ petitioner, however, contended that he should be allowed to take part in the Mulaipari festival. This being a customary practice, we do not wish to go into the said aspect. However, it is open to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance, by filing a suit before the appropriate Civil Court.

¶35

7.The Inspector of Police, Oomatchikulam Police Station and the Tahsildar, Madurai North are directed to ensure that the festival is conducted in a peaceful and smooth manner, taking into account the arrangements setforth above.

¶36

8.With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶39

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

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar.

¶41

¶42

To 1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

¶43

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomatchikulam, Madurai District. 4.Thasildar, Madurai North, Madurai District. 5.The Inspector of Police, Oomatchikulam Police Station, Madurai District.

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.13447 of 2017 21.07.2017

¶45

ps/sm AM/SKN RSK/SAR 4/24.07.2017/3P/6C

¶46

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

M.Manikandan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Manikandan 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

G. Uma Maheswari Vs the Secretary to Government

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs the Manager/Correspondent

N. Gunasekeran Vs the Bharat Heavy Electricals

N.Chellathurai Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Palanisamy Vs the Chairman

M.Ananthan Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu