Disposed

N.Pandiselvam Ambalakarar v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Sept 2019WP(MD)/16428/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking police protection for temple worship. Court directed the seventh respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and grant an opportunity to rival parties within four weeks without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the seventh respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within four weeks after giving opportunity to rival parties.

N.Pandiselvam Ambalakarar Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P (MD).No. 16428 of 2019

¶6

N.Pandiselvem Ambalakarar .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The District Collector Madurai District Madurai 2. The Superintendent of Police Madurai District Madurai 3. The Joint Commissioner TamilNadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Madurai 4. The Assistant Commissioner TamilNadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Madurai 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer Melur at Othakadai Melur Main Road Othakadai, Madurai 6. The Tahsildhar Melur Taluk Madurai 7. The Inspector of Police Keelavalavu Police Station Madurai District 8. Kurinji Kumaran Ambalakarar 9. Periyampillai Ambalakarar 10. Vellaiyan Ambalakarar 11. Somasundaram Ambalakarar 12. Karuppiah Ambalakarar 13. Alagusundram Ambalakarar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. Manthakalai Ambalakarar 15. Manthakalai Ambalakarar

¶9

¶10

Perumal Ambalakarar 17.Perumal Ambalakarar 18.Kumaran Ambalakarar 19. Kamban Ambalakarar (Respondents 8 to 19 are impleaded

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

as per the order of this Court dated 05.09.2019 made in WMP 13433 of 2019)

¶13

Prayer : This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the seventh respondent to grant adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members for peforming poojas and worshipping the deities in the Temples, namely, 1) Sri Ezhaikathamman Temple 2) Sri Valladikarar Temple 3) Sri karungal Manthaikaruppanna Swamy Temple 4) Sembur Ayyanar Temple 5) Kadambur Ayyanar Temple and 6)Perambur Ayyanar Temple situated at Melur Taluk, Madurai District on basis of the Petitioners representation dated 3.6.2019.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajagopal For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj No.1 to 7 Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶15

This Petition has been filed to direct the seventh respondent to grant adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members for peforming poojas and worshipping the deities in the Temples, namely, 1) Sri Ezhaikathamman Temple 2) Sri Valladikarar Temple 3) Sri karungal Manthaikaruppanna Swamy Temple 4) Sembur Ayyanar Temple 5) Kadambur Ayyanar Temple and 6)Perambur Ayyanar Temple situated at Melur Taluk, Madurai District

¶16

It is the grievance of the petitioner that due to dispute in respect of administration and management of temple they could not perform poojas and worship the deities. He has also submitted an representation to the second and seventh respondent for conducting the temple festival, which has not been considered by the second and seventh respondent till date and therefore, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶17

3 . This Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same in one way or the other. Non-consideration of the same would amount to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dereliction of ordinary duties of their office and as such, this Court would be justified in invoking its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct them to consider

¶18

¶19

the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time.

¶20

4 . In view of the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition and without going into the merits of the case, there shall be a direction to the seventh respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2019 on its own merits and take further action in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such an exercise shall be done after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the rival parties.

¶21

5. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Assistant Registrar (AD I)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

aav

¶26

¶27

The District Collector Madurai District Madurai

¶28

The Superintendent of Police Madurai District Madurai

¶29

The Joint Commissioner TamilNadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department

¶30

Madurai

¶31

The Assistant Commissioner TamilNadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Madurai

¶32

The Revenue Divisional Officer Melur at Othakadai Melur Main Road Othakadai, Madurai

¶33

The Tahsildhar

¶34

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

¶35

Madurai

¶36

¶37

The Inspector of Police Keelavalavu Police Station

¶38

Madurai District

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.D. RAJAGOPAL, Advocate ( SR-85375[F] dated 05/09/2019 )

¶40

W.P (MD).No.16428 of 2019 05.09.2019

¶41

KK/SAR/10.09.2019/4P-9C/

¶42

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

N.Pandiselvam Ambalakarar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Pandiselvam Ambalakarar 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

M.Mariammal Vs the Deputy Inspector of General of Prisons

panerselvam Vs The Inspector of Police.

A.Allwin Raj Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Balaji @ Santhana Gopalakrishnan Vs R.Dhivya @ Sankari

V.Deva harin sam Vs The Superintendent of police

N.S.Karikalan Vs The Commissioner of Police