Petitioner challenged a religious custom of carrying a deity in a palanquin. Court dismissed the writ petition holding no legal right existed as no compulsion was alleged and the petitioner failed to exhaust RTI appeal remedies before approaching the court.
Writ of Mandamus to direct Respondent 1 to reply to the representation was not granted.
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.
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
R.Natarajan
...Petitioner
Vs
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
Dharmapuram Adheenam, Dharmapuram Mayiladuthurai 609 101. ...Respondents
1/10
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
Prayer :-
Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent 1 to give reply to the Petitioner in accordance with law, with reference to all the issues raised in his representation dated 02.11.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Maragatha Sundari For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader (for R1 to R3)
Mr.M.Karthikeyan (for R4)
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of
writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the
representation made by the petitioner on 02.11.2022 and to respond for the same.
According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent performed a ceremony called as “Pattinappiravesam” and during that
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
ceremony, he was carried in a Pallanquin by fellow human beings. According to the petitioner, it is inhuman to make one man carry the other in a civilized society and even if it is taken to be a custom, the petitioner contends that it is a custom contra naturam in law.
representation to take action for such an in-human act that was
done by carrying the 4th respondent in pallanquin. The petitioner had sent an application under the RTI Act to the Joint Commissioner seeking for information on the so called custom of carrying the 4th respondent in a Pallanquin by human beings. On receipt of this application, a reply was given by the Joint Commissioner through letter dated 27.09.2022 to the effect that there is no record available with respect to the information that had been sought for by the petitioner.
3/10
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
representation to the 1st respondent on 02.11.2022 by explaining the entire facts and had sought for the action that is taken by the HR&CE Department in order to stop the practice of carrying the 4th respondent in a pallanquin by fellow human beings. Since this representation did not evoke any response, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.
for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader, for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for 4th respondent.
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
and worked out his remedy, instead the petitioner has given a representation to the Chief Secretary. This procedure adopted by the petitioner is unsustainable. Hence, the representation made to the Chief Secretary, does not give a cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court and seek for a direction.
by way of a writ of Mandamus where the party approaches the
Court seeking for the disposal of the representation, was considered in detail by the Apex Court in [A.P.S.R.T.C and others Vs. G.Srinivasa Reddy and others] reported in 2006 3 LW 170. The Apex Court made it clear that the practice of issuing directions in a mechanical fashion should be avoided by the writ court and the Court has to be convinced that there is a legal right involved which warrants giving such a direction to the state or an instrumentality of a state. No one can ask for issuance of writ of Mandamus without a legal right. There must
be a judicially enforceable legal right as well as a legally
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
protected right before one who is suffering from a legal grievance can seek for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person has been denied a legal duty to do something or to abstain him from doing something. The law on this issue has been discussed in detail by the Apex Court in [Mani Subrat Jain and others Vs. State of Haryana and others] reported in 1977 1 SCC 486.
Court will issue a writ of Mandamus only if the petitioner is able
to establish that the petitioner has a legally enforceable right and there is a corresponding duty on the part of the authorities.
expressed by the petitioner is not based on any legal right. The petitioner feels that the 4th respondent should not be carried in a pallanquin by fellow human beings. Therefore, the petitioner is
looking at this issue from his perspective. If there are persons
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
who voluntarily want to carry some one in a pallenquin, no one can stop those persons from doing it. The actual grievance will arise only if somebody is compelled to do such an Act. In such an event, it can be called as in human in a civilised society since one man cannot be compelled to carry another man even in the guise of calling it a custom since such a custom will be considered custom contra naturam in law. Hence, in the absence of any legal right on the part of the petitioner, there can never be a corresponding legal duty on the part of the respondent. In such circumstances, this Court cannot issue a writ of Mandamus.
7/10
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
costs.
21.04.2023
rka Index : Yes Internet : Yes Neutral Citation case : Yes To
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
Dharmapuram Adheenam, Dharmapuram Mayiladuthurai 609 101.
8/10
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J rka
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
21.04.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a legally enforceable right to direct the authorities to respond to a representation regarding a religious custom.
Whether the petitioner correctly exhausted remedies by approaching the writ court instead of appealing the RTI authority's reply.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.P.S.R.T.C and others Vs. G.Srinivasa Reddy and othersReferred¶47
A.P.S.R.T.C and others Vs. G.Srinivasa Reddy and others reported in 2006 3 LW 170
Mani Subrat Jain and others Vs. State of Haryana and othersReferred¶53
Mani Subrat Jain and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1977 1 SCC 486 · Who else cites this
R. Natarajan
Government of Tamil Nadu
Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department
Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department
Sri La Masilamani Desiga Gnanasambanda Paramacharya Swamigal
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
