Disposed

M.Jeevanandam Poosari v. the District Colletor

Madras HC13 Dec 2022WP(MD)/15888/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking mandamus to restrain respondents from preventing the Petitioner from worshipping at a temple festival was disposed of. The Bench held that since the stipulated festival period had lapsed, no further action was required, while referencing the constitutional right to free worship.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as the proposed festival period had lapsed; no further relief granted.

M.Jeevanandam Poosari Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No.15888 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. 15888 of 2014 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2014

¶7

M.Jeevanandam Poosari

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Superintendent of Police,

¶12

O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District,

¶13

Madurai.

¶14

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur,

¶15

Madurai District.

¶16

4.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶17

5.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk,

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

W.P. (MD) No.15888 of 2014

¶21

Madurai District.

¶22

6.The Inspector of Police, O/o. The Inspector of Police, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶23

7.P. Ganesan Ambalam

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 from preventing the Petitioner and other schedule caste community people from worshipping in the Sri Harihara Puthira Satha Ayyanar Temple Festival at Sathamangalam Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District proposed to be conducted form 22.09.2014 to 23.09.2014 in accordance with the Peace Committee Proceedings dated 18.09.2014.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr. T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr. T.Villavankothai Additional Government Pleader For R1 to R5

¶27

Mr. S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R6

¶28

No appearance For R7

¶29

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

¶30

2/6

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

W.P. (MD) No.15888 of 2014

¶33

Heard Mr. T.Lajapathi Roy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. T.Villavankothai, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First to Fifth Respondents and Mr. P.Manikandan, Learned Counsel for the Sixth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶34

2 . The Writ Petition has been filed to restrain the First to Sixth Respondents from preventing the Petitioner and other Schedule Caste Community people from worshipping in the Sri Harihara Puthira Satha Ayyanar Temple Festival at Sathamangalam Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, proposed to be conducted form 22.09.2014 to 23.09.2014 in accordance with the Peace Committee Proceedings dated 18.09.2014.

¶35

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 Petitioner if he has any other grievance to work out his remedies before the proper forum in the manner recognized by law. It is needless to add

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P. (MD) No.15888 of 2014

¶39

here that as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Varadaraj -vs- the 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.

¶40

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

¶41

13.12.2022

¶42

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes /No sj Note: Issue order copy by 27.12.2022. To

¶43

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶44

2.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶45

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

¶46

4/6

¶47

W.P. (MD) No.15888 of 2014

¶48

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur, Madurai District.

¶49

4.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶50

5.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶51

6.The Inspector of Police, O/o. The Inspector of Police, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

W.P. (MD) No.15888 of 2014

¶55

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶56

¶57

W.P. (MD) No. 15888 of 2014

¶58

Dated : 13.12.2022

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

M.Jeevanandam Poosari v. the District Colletor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jeevanandam Poosari v. the District Colletor

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