Allowed

K. Mariyappan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC18 Mar 2020WP(MD)/5628/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 to challenge the impugned order of the Hereditary Trustee. The Judge directed the Trustee to allot work to eight barbers on a rotation basis, prepare written regulations in consultation with all, and obtain a bond under Section 107 Cr.P.C. from the parties to ensure peace while allowing temple work to continue.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned order was set aside, and directions were issued for rotational work allotment, printed regulations, and a bond under Section 107 Cr.P.C.

K. Mariyappan Vs the Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.5628 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.03.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.(MD) No.5628 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.4924 and 4926 of 2020

K.Mariyappan

... Petitioner

/vs./

The Commissioner,

¶8

Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department,

¶9

No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Street, Chennai-34..

¶10

The Joint Commissioner,

¶11

Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, Tirupattur Road, Sivagangai Town, Sivagangai District.

¶12

M.Venkatesan Chettiyar, Hereditary Trustee, Arulmigu Muthumariamman Temple, Thayamangalam, Ilayangudi, Sivagangai District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Respondent No.4 is suo motu impleaded as per order of this Court dated 18.03.2020)

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 15.02.2020 and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi

¶18

For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For R-3 : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohaideen

¶19

For R-4 : Mr.S.Dayalan Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the order of the third respondent, namely, Hereditary Trustee, Arulmigu Muthumariamman Temple, Thayamanglam, Ilayangudi, Sivagangai District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

1/3

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.5628 of 2020

¶24

The petitioner is a Barber. Even at the outset before examining the facts, it must be stated that the said professionals must be encouraged by the Court to continue to do the traditional work, so long as they express their willingness to continue to do the traditional work. They are necessary to do tonsure to the public in the Temple. The pilgrims take a vow to donate their hair for the deity and the petitioner assists them in fulfilling their vow. Unfortunately, the petitioner is a member of a family and every member of the family seeks individual and exclusive rights. That leads to issues among the family members. It is hoped that the third respondent / Hereditary Trustee, may call for a meeting among all the Barbers, who are said to be eight in number and resolve the issues amicably. At any rate, the issues had gone out of hand to such extent, that a case and counter case came to be registered by the Police, one against the petitioner and another on a complaint given by the petitioner against his relatives.

¶25

It is stated by Mr.Mohamed Mohideen, learned counsel, who has taken notice for the third respondent, that there are eight barbers as on date and on rotation basis, the pilgrims are alloted to each one of the eight barbers to do their work and they are paid after deducting expenses towards razor and such other items. The said system should continue and it would be in the interest of the Temple that the said system is reduced in writing and printed and also handed over to all the eight barbers and their consent is obtained to conform to such regulations. In order to avoid any breach of peace, the Executive Magistrate may also obtain from the petitioner and other barbers a bond under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. They should realize their responsibilities and they have to discharge their duties on behalf of the deity for whom the pilgrims seek to donate their own hair.

¶26

4.In view of these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and a direction is given to the third respondent to continue with the practice as it had been happening after getting necessary undertaking from the petitioner and allot work to all the eight barbers on rotation basis and print the regulations and distribute them, so that they would be aware of their duties and responsibilities. The pendency of the criminal case may not be a bar for allotment of work. The Investigation Officer may proceed with the investigation with regard to the First Information Report registered against him. Independently, the Executive Magistrate may also obtain a bond to maintain peace under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The Executive Magistrate is not a party and a direction has been given to take a bond under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, is suo motu impleaded as a fourth respondent herein. Registry is directed to implead the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District, as the fourth respondent and amend the cause title suitably before issuing the order copy. The procedures contemplated may be completed on or before 31.03.2020.

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.5628 of 2020

¶30

With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side)

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶35

tsg To 1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Street, Chennai-34.. 2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, Tirupattur Road, Sivagangai Town, Sivagangai District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District. + 1 CC to Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi, Advocate SR.NO.12592 + 1 CC to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.12454 + 1 CC to Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohaideen, Advocate SR.No.12210

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.5628 of 2020

¶37

18.03.2020

¶38

KS(23/03/2020) 3P 7C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

K. Mariyappan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Mariyappan v. the Commissioner

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

S. Vaikundarajan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S. Annal Vs District Forest Officer

B.Govindasamy Vs The Collector

M/S.Ashok Timber Trading Company Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Esakkiammal Vs the District Collector

Jeyaparvathi Vs the Govt of Tamil Nadu