Disposed

M.Kanakaraj v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Dec 2022WP(MD)/11610/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging peace committee proceedings regarding the non-conduct of a Mariamman Temple festival, the Hon'ble Court held that as the relevant time period had already lapsed, nothing survived for further consideration, and disposed of the petition with necessary clarification.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with clarification; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

M.Kanakaraj Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 11610 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 11610 of 2014 and M.P. (MD) No. 3 of 2014

¶7

M.Kanakaraj

¶8

R.Chellamuthu

¶9

S.Chinnian

¶10

P.Pitchai

¶11

C.Muthu

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

The District Collector, Trichirapalli District, Trichirapalli.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Musiri Taluk, Trichirapalli District.

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P. (MD) No. 11610 of 2014

¶19

The Tahsildar, Musiri Taluk, Trichirapalli District.

¶20

The Inspector of Police, Musiri, Trichirapalli District.

¶21

Rengaraj

¶22

Uthandan

¶23

M.Rengasamy

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in the form of impugned minutes of peace committee meeting dated 27.05.2014 recorded on the file of 3^rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, in competent, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and in consequence direct the official respondents to protect the rights of the petitioners and afford protection to celebrate the festival of Mariamman Temple after rescheduling, and for consequential orders.

¶26

For Petitioners : Mr. S.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr. T.Villavankothai Additional Government Pleader (for R1 to R3) Mr. S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Criminal Side) (for R4) No appearance (for R5 to R7)

¶27

2/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

W.P. (MD) No. 11610 of 2014

¶31

Heard Mr. S.Ramesh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. T.Villavankothai, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First to Third Respondents and Mr. P.Manikandan, Learned Counsel for the Fourth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶32

2 . The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated 27.05.2014 passed by the Peace Committee, whereby it was decided not to conduct the Temple festival in view of the disputes between two groups and to consequently Direct the Official Respondents to protect the rights of the Petitioners and afford protection to celebrate the Festival of Mariamman Temple after re-scheduling.

¶33

3 . Having regard to the fact that the said period had already lapsed, nothing survives for further consideration in this Writ Petition, but it shall not preclude the Petitioners if they have any other grievance to work out their remedies before the proper forum in the manner recognized by law. It is needless to add here that 3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P. (MD) No. 11610 of 2014

¶36

as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Varadaraj -vsthe District Revenue Officer, Collector Officer, Perambalur District (Order dated 15.11.2019 in W.A. No. 3813 of 2019), the right to free worship, which is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, can be regulated and efforts should be made by the concerned authorities to conduct the festivals, particularly where there is no prohibition for the same, with the co-operation of all sections of the people in an amicable manner.

¶37

In fine, the Writ Petition is disposed with the aforesaid clarification. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

13.12.2022

Index : Yes/No

Note: Issue order copy by 06.03.2023.

¶42

4/6

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P. (MD) No. 11610 of 2014

¶45

¶46

The District Collector, Trichirapalli District, Trichirapalli.

¶47

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Musiri Taluk, Trichirapalli District.

¶48

The Tahsildar, Musiri Taluk, Trichirapalli District.

¶49

The Inspector of Police, Musiri, Trichirapalli District.

¶50

5/6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P. (MD) No. 11610 of 2014

¶53

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶54

¶55

W.P. (MD) No. 11610 of 2014

¶56

Dated : 13.12.2022

¶57

6/6

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Kanakaraj v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kanakaraj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Ramesh Babu, S/O.Thulasiram, Vs the Commissfioner

G.Murugesan, Vs the Asst Commissioner

Murugesan.C Vs The Commissioner

Abdullah a Vs The Chairman

Lalitha Jambunathan .J Vs The Regional Transport Authority

Thasirkhan Abdul Hameed Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax