Disposed

S.Rajangam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Nov 2018WP(MD)/22539/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in Writ Petition (MD) No.22539 of 2018 was decided 5.12.2018. After confirming that the Petitioner and respondents filed a memo stating the 'Kuthirai Eduppu Thiruvizha' was conducted peacefully per previous court orders on 20.11.2018 and 09.11.2018, no further orders were made as the matter was settled.

What did the court decide?

Disputed matter settled by agreement of parties memos stating peaceful conduct; no further orders made.

S.Rajangam, Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Wednesday, the Fifth day of December Two Thousand and Eighteen

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

WP(MD) No.22539 of 2018

¶7

S.RAJANGAM ... PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, SIVAGANGAI.

¶10

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SIVAGANGAI.

¶11

3 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, SIVAGANGAI.

¶12

4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SIVAGANGAI. 5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPPUVANAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the 4th Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to conduct the Peace Committee Meeting regarding celebration of Kuthirai Eduppu Thiruvizha scheduled in the month of November and consequently permit the Petitioner Agamudayarkarai Group intaking part in the “Kuthirai Eduppu Thiruvizha” scheduled in the month of November in Arulmigu Kalitheertha Ayyanarswamy Temple at Vaviyarenthal, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶14

ORDER : This Petition coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the affidavit and material papers filed, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.N.ANANDAKUMAR, Advocate for the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mrs.J.PADMAVATHY DEVI, Special Government Pleader on behalf of the 1^st Respondent, and of Mr.J.ANANDAKUMAR, Advocate for the Intervenor,

¶15

¶16

this Court made the following order:-

¶17

In pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 20.11.2018, the petitioner and the respondents have filed a memo stating that “Kuthirai Eduppu Thiruvizha” was conducted on 22.10.2018 in a peaceful manner and all 'A' and 'B' parties have taken part in the “Kuthirai Eduppu Thiruvizha” in Arulmigu Kalitheertha Ayyanarswamy Temple at Vaviyarenthal, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶18

2.As per the order passed by this Court on 09.11.2018, both the petitioner's Agamudayar Group headed by Rajangam and the Kallar Community Group headed by Saravanan had taken part in the Thiruvizha and all the parties have abided the court directions and the celebration of Pongal and Puravi Edupppu Thiruvizha was conducted peacefully in united manner and prayed for suitable orders in the writ petition. Since both the learned counsel appeared before this Court and filed a memo to that effect that entire procedure went on well and accordingly they also agreed that Kuthirai Eduppu Thiruvizha and any other function in the said Village will be conducted in a peaceful manner and also they will follow the direction issued by this Court which are as follows:

¶19

“(i)Both the parties are at liberty to keep pongal in a fixed time and both the parties can join together and keep pongal separately and do all the rituals and after keeping pongal, poojas to be conducted by the Poojari nad keep all the pongals in one place and after the rituals, it could be distributed to all the villagers and there will be no discrimination and there should not be any untoward incident. Both the parties are directed to maintain peace and cordial relationship with others.

¶20

(ii)The said function of offering horses has to be done as per the usual procedure and it is made clear that nobody is above the law and everybody are equal before the law and there should not be any disparity between the persons, who are participating in the festival. The Villagers as one family can perform the rituals.

¶21

(iii)The concerned police authority is directed to give necessary protection to the Villagers in conducting the said Temple festival peacefully without any untoward incident.”

¶22

3.'A' and 'B' parties from both the community have agreed to celebrate the festival in a peaceful manner in future and also have concurred to abide the three conditions as directed by this Court.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (P&A)

¶25

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

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)

¶28

¶29

¶30

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, SIVAGANGAI.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SIVAGANGAI.
3 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, SIVAGANGAI.
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SIVAGANGAI.
5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPPUVANAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.
+ 1 CC TO Mr.V.MALAIYENDRAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 98777
+ 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 99236

¶31

ORDER DATED : 05.12.2018 ORDER WP(MD) No.22539 of 2018

¶32

TE/SV/SAR-4 : 25/01/2019 : 3P/8C

¶33

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

S.Rajangam, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajangam, 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

Sudalai, Vs the Junior Engineer

Subramanian Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Ramayie Vs the District Collector

S.a.Byrose, Vs the Executive Engineer

M.Vadivel Vs the District Collector

M.Segu Ammal, Vs the Inspector of Registration