The High Court quashed an order by an Inspector prohibiting a temple car festival, holding the Inspector lacked jurisdiction. The Court directed authorities to ensure safety and allowed the festival.
The impugned communication was quashed. The writ petition was allowed. Directions were issued to TANGEDCO to disconnect electricity and ensure safety.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.05.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Writ Petition No.12918 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.12418 & 12419 of 2022
P.R.Srinivasan Hereditary Trustee
Arulmighu Abheeshta Varadharaja Swamy Temple Dharmapuri District.
...Petitioner
-Vs-
Chennai – 600 034.
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 5th respondent leading to pass the impugned order dated 13.05.2022 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari for Mr.M.Narayanaswamy
For Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram 1 to 3 & 5 Advocate General Assisted by Mr.Muthukumar State Government Pleader
O R D E R
'Our village will face divine wrath if the proposed Rath festival is not held tomorrow' – This fervent prayer of the writ petitioner made the Court to hold an emergent sitting from Nagercoil and conduct the case through Whatsapp.
Taluk, Dharmapuri District. An Inspector is not one of the authorities listed in section 8 of The Tamil Nadu H.R.&C.E.Act,1959. No statutory provision empowers him to issue the impugned communication either to the Fit Person or to the hereditary trustee. It is is absolutely without jurisdiction and hence quashed. Since the stand of the respondents is evident, I do not stop here and I am inclined to mould the relief.
secularism. Respectfully following the aforesaid ratio, I hold that it is the duty of the HR&CE department as well as the state government and the local administration to put in place all the necessary arrangements so that the customary religious festivals are smoothly conducted. Any power is coupled with duty. If the Government, through the HR & CE Department wants to have control and supervision over temple administration, it has the twin duty of ensuring that the traditional festivals are held by adhering to the safety standards. The local body has to maintain the roads in a pucca condition. TANGEDCO must disconnect the electricity supply. The authorities under the HR&CE Act are obliged to ensure that the safety norms laid down in the aforesaid G.O. are met. In this case, I am more than satisfied after going through the materials on record that the basic safety norms have already been taken into account. The Junior Engineer, PWD has already issued the structural stability certificate. In the co-ordination meeting, certain decisions have already been taken and green signal was also given. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only Low Tension (LT) lines are running and there is no running of High Tension (HT) lines. In any event, the petitioner gives an undertaking that every possible step will be taken and fool proof arrangement made to ensure that no mishap occurs. I record the said undertaking. It is also seen that the road width is sufficient for the chariot to move. The TANGEDCO is directed to disconnect the supply of electricity during the procession time. The respondents will ensure that the proposed car festival is held without any mishap tomorrow.
Sd/-
Vacation Officer
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
KST
To
+1cc to Mr.M.Narayanaswamy, Advocate SR. No. 31488
+1cc to Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) SR. No. 31553
W.P.No. 12918 of 2022
GP (CO) PR (19/05/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an Inspector under the Tamil Nadu H.R.&C.E.Act, 1959 had jurisdiction to issue a communication prohibiting the temple car festival.
Whether the State has a constitutional obligation to facilitate customary religious festivals while ensuring public safety.
Whether the petitioner has complied with safety norms to conduct the Rath festival.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarika Vs Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir CommitteeFollowed¶33
Sarika Vs Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee (2018) 17 SCC 112 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.R.Srinivasan Hereditary Trustee
Arulmighu Abheeshta Varadharaja Swamy Temple Dharmapuri District
The Commissioner H.R.& C.E., Department
The Joint Commissioner H.R.&C.E., Department, Salem
The Assistant Commissioner H.R.&C.E., Department Dharmapuri District
The Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO
G.R.SWAMINATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Parties & counsel
