Disposed

Sailappan.R.M v. the Commissioner

Madras HC7 Jan 2022WP(MD)/309/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Joint Commissioner to convene a meeting between petitioner and private respondents to amicably resolve a conflict over the timing of a Yagnam during the Thai Poosam festival. The court ordered a calendar to be fixed within a fortnight to avoid dates clash, leaving merits and locus of petitioner open.

What did the court decide?

Directed Joint Commissioner to conduct a joint meeting to fix a calendar avoiding clash between Yagnam and Thai Poosam festival within four weeks.

Sailappan.R.M Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.[MD]No.309 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.01.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.[MD]No.309 of 2022 and W.M.P.[MD]No.236 of 2022

¶3

R.M.Sailappan ... Petitioner Vs.

¶4

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 600 034.

¶5

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tuticorin – 628 008. 3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkalinga Swamy Temple, Ravanasamuthiram, Having Office at Arulmigu Kailasanatha Swamy Temple, Kadayam – 627 415, Tenkasi District.

¶6

4.V.M.Muthukrishnan, RVS Welfare Association, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Ravana Samuthiram – 627 424, Tenkasi District.

¶7

5.R.Neelakandan ... Respondents

¶8

P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to restrain the respondents 4 & 5 and their men from conducting any Yagnam in Arulmigu Chokkalingaswamy Temple at Ravanasamuthiram Village, Tenkasi Taluk & District during the Brahmotchavam festival period from 09.01.2022 to 18.01.2022.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subbiah For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.M.Ramesh Government Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr.M.Saravanan For Respondents 4&5 : Mr.R.Kannan

¶10

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

¶11

1/7

¶12

W.P.[MD]No.309 of 2022

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Alumigu Chokkalingaswamy Udanaya Arultharum Meenakshi Ambal Thirukoil, a public temple situate in Ravanasamuthiram, Tenkasi Taluk, Tenkasi District [hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity] is the nucleus of the captioned main writ petition.

¶15

2. Said temple is governed by 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959)' {hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of brevity} and is under the control, management and administration of 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu' [hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Dept.,' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]. This Court is informed that an executive officer in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of TN HR & CE Dept., and a Board of Trustees are now in administration qua said temple.

¶16

3. Mr.P.Subbiah, learned Counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr.M.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 & 2, Mr.M.Saravanan, learned private Counsel who accepts notice on behalf of Executive Officer of said Temple who is a serving Assistant Commissioner in TN HR & CE Dept., and Mr.R.Kannan, learned private Counsel who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 4 & 5 [private respondents] are before me.

¶17

4. The main writ petition is taken up with the consent of all the aforementioned Counsel.

¶18

5. This Court is informed that said temple is an ancient temple and Thai Poosam festival spanning over ten days is annually conducted in said temple for not less than a century. It is the case of the writ petitioner that private respondents 4 & 5 and an entity which goes by the name RVS Welfare Association of which private respondents 4 & 5 are part of are conducting a pooja which goes by the name 'Maharudhra Mahayaghnam' [hereinafter 'said Yaghnam' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

¶19

6. There is also no disputation or disagreement before this Court that said Yaghnam is being conducted annually for the last 10 years.

¶20

7. The core grievance of the writ petitioner is said Yaghnam runs into established Agamas ie., established usage of said temple. It has been averred that the writ petitioner is a person having interest qua said temple and that the said temple is governed by ' fhkpfhfkk ' (Kaamiga Aagamam).

¶21

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

¶22

2/7

¶23

W.P.[MD]No.309 of 2022

¶24

8. The writ petitioner has sent a representation to respondents 1 to 3 being representation dated 30.12.2021 and paragraph No.3 of this representation captures the crux and gravamen of the writ petitioner's grievance. This Court considers it appropriate to extract reproduce paragraph No.3 of said representation, this Court does so and the same reads as follows:

¶25

' 3) mt ; thW ,Uffifapy ; ; g ; uk ; nkhw ; rtjjpw ; ; bfd gjpthf g{$pf ; fg ; gLk ; fyr'fs ; itf ; fg ; gLk ; Kd ; ng mjpfhiy K : yth ; Rthkp rd ; djpapdpny kcwhUju kcwhaf ; cj!tj ; jpw ; ; bfd ntW rpy Fk ; g'fs ; ; itjJ mjw ; F r' ; fy ; ; gk ; . Fk ; gg{i$ csspl ; l fphpiafs ; rpy jdp eghfshy ; ; nkwbfhs ; sg ; ; gLfpwJ/ kjpak ; Rkhh ; xU kzp mstpy ; jhd ; ,g ; g{i$ epiwtbgWfpwJ/ ,t [ ; thW ,UfFk ; ; epiyapy ; fhiy Rkhh ; xd ; gJ kzp mstpy ; cw ; rth g [ wg ; ghL eilbgWfpwJ/ mjpfhiyapnyna ,thfs ; ; Rthkp mk ; ghspid Mthcwdk ; braJ ;

¶26

Fk ; gjjpy ; ; itjjhy ; ; Rthkp mk ; ghs ; vGejpUe ; J Mtij jLj ; jy ; ; Mfhjh ,J Mfk tpjpkPwy ; Mfhjh vd ; w tpdhtpw ; F j'fs ; ; rK : fk ; jhd ; chpa tpsffk ; ; ju ntz ; Lk ; / '

¶27

9. Therefore it is clear that the bone of contention is the belief that the deities are taken in a procession during Thai Poosam festival is affected as said Yaghnam is conducted at the time when the Thai Poosam festival commences. In other words, while the belief / faith is the deities are in a procession, they are also being worshipped inside the said temple. The latter which is a recent 10 year old phenomenon is running into the former which is conducted for not less than a century as per governing Agama Shastra is the writ petitioner's complaint in a nutshell.

¶28

10. Before this Court proceeds further it is made clear that this Court does not intend to express any opinion or view on the merits of the matter as the aforementioned complaint of writ petitioner is disputed by learned Counsel for respondents 4 & 5 as unfounded.

¶29

11. Learned Counsel for writ petitioner submits that the entire matter can be given a quietus if the said Yaghnam dates do not clash with the Thai Poosam festival dates. In other words it is the case of writ petitioner that there would be no issue if the said Yaghnam is conducted on any date/s other than date/s of Thai Poosam festival.

¶30

12. Learned Counsel for respondents 4 & 5 also raised a question about the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of writ petitioner. As this Court is parens patriae qua said temple and the law obtaining today is the presiding deity is construed to be in the status of a minor and the Court is guardian, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there may be no impediment in passing a consent order (as parens

¶31

3/7

¶32

W.P.[MD]No.309 of 2022

¶33

patriae , leaving open this question) in an attempt to give quietus to the contestations. The question regarding locus of writ petitioner is also left open. In other words this Court does not express any opinion or view on the contestation qua locus of the writ petitioner in this view of the matter.

¶34

13. Before setting out the operative part of this consent order, it is also necessary to make it clear that when a question as to what the established usage of a religious institution is or any other matter in this regard arises, the same has to be decided by way of a quasi-judicial legal drill under Section 63(e) of TN HR & CE Act, which reads as follows:

¶35

'' 63.Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner

¶36

to decide certain disputes and matters.- Subject to

¶37

the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matter:-

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) ... (d) ...

(e) Wether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter;''

¶42

[Underlining and double underlining made by this Court for ease of reference]

¶43

To be noted, 'religious institution' is a defined term and the same has been defined vide Section 6(18) and this has to be read in conjunction with Section 6(20) which defines the term 'temple'. These two provisions read as follows:

¶44

' 6(18). “Religious institution” means a math, temple or specific endowment and includes,:-

¶45

(i) a samadhi or brindhavan; or

¶46

(ii) any other institution established or maintained for a religious purpose.

¶47

Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause-

¶48

(1) “samadhi”means a place where the mortal remains of a guru, sadhu or saint is interned and used as a place of public religious worship;

¶49

(2) “brindhavan”means a place established or maintained in memory of a guru, sadhu or saint and used as a place of public religious worship, but does

¶50

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

¶51

4/7

¶52

W.P.[MD]No.309 of 2022

¶53

not include the samadhi;)

¶54

6(20). “temple” means a place by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or of any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship;

¶55

Explanation. - Where a temple situated outside the State has properties situated within the State, control shall be exercised over the temple in accordance with the provisions of this Act, in so far as the properties of the temple situated within the State are concerned;'

¶56

[Extracted and reproduced as such]

¶57

14. The above position has been set out only for better appreciation of this order.

¶58

15. As far as the Thai Poosam festival for the current Fasli ie., Fasli 1431 [01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 in the Gregorian Calender / English Calender] is concerned this Court is informed that Thai Poosam festival is scheduled to be held from 09.01.2022 to 18.01.2022. Owing to the pandemic ie., spurt in the Omicron variant of Corona virus and the consequent lock down which none could portent or presage, the State Counsel and learned private Counsel for temple submit in one voice that the ensuing Thai Poosam festival will not be open for congregation of the worshipers and only the ceremonies will be conducted by the Archagars and the TN HR & CE Dept., officials maintaining strict Covid-19 protocol. In this view of the matter for the current year the request of private respondents and more particularly the entity RVS Welfare Association for conducting said Yaghnam has been negatived is their further say. This submission is also recorded. To be noted this is for this year (as alluded to supra) in the light of the pandemic and the omicron variant which none could portent or presage.

¶59

16. The following order is passed:

¶60

a) The second respondent ie., Joint Commissioner shall conduct a joint meeting of the writ petitioner and respondents 4 & 5. In this joint meeting the second respondent shall try and resolve the issue by fixing a calender whereby dates qua the said Yaghnam and the Thai Poosam festival do not clash which will give a quietus to the bone of contention. The writ petitioners as well as respondents 4 & 5 shall give utmost cooperation in trying to arrive at an amicable solution;

¶61

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

¶62

5/7

¶63

W.P.[MD]No.309 of 2022

¶64

b) In the unlikely event of a amicable solution becoming a mirage, the parties will have to necessarily take recourse to Section 63(e) of TN HR & CE Act owing to the legal position that has been alluded to / delineated elsewhere supra in this order. Though obvious, for the sake of specificity it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion or view on the merits of the matter as that will have an impact qua aforementioned meeting and/or proceedings leading to a possible amicable solution;

¶65

c) The meeting and an attempt to arrive at an amicable solution by setting a calender for the Thai Poosam and said Yaghnam would be commenced by second respondent within a fortnight from today ie., on or before 21.01.2022 and concluded within four [4] weeks therefrom ie., on or before 18.02.2022;

¶66

d) This Court concludes the matter in the fond hope that no further judicial intervention is required in the case on hand.

¶67

17. Captioned Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner with the aforesaid directives. Consequently, captioned Writ Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶68

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶69

// True Copy //

¶70

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶71

¶72

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶73

¶74

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 600 034.

¶75

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

¶76

6/7

¶77

W.P.[MD]No.309 of 2022

¶78

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tuticorin – 628 008.

¶79

+1 CC to M/s.M.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-926[F] dated 10/01/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.P.SUBBIAH, Advocate ( SR-797[F] dated 07/01/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-1010[F] dated 10/01/2022 )

¶80

W.P.[MD]No.309 of 2022 07.01.2022

¶81

AP (19.01.2022) 7P 6C

¶82

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

¶83

7/7

Sailappan.R.M v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sailappan.R.M 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

Suyambunadar, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

V.Murugesan Vs State Rep. by Its Government

P.K.Murugan, Vs the Commissioner

Backiyaraj.R Vs the Additional Superintendent of Police

Thiyagarajan Vs the President

Pradeepa Vs the Joint Transport Commissioner