Allowed

Mariyaselvaraj v. The Principal Secretary

Madras HC26 Apr 2023WP(MD)/8745/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed an order preventing the petitioner from holding Vadamadu Manjuvirattu, directing the District Collector to permit the event within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order rejecting the request and directed the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct Vadamadu Manjuvirattu within ten days subject to conditions.

Mariyaselvaraj Vs The Principal Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8745 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.04.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8745 of 2023

Mariyaselvaraj

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Principal Secretary, Animal and Husbandry Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶11

The Commissioner, Animal and Husbandry Welfare Department, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.

¶12

The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd Respondent in Na.Ka.D1/3796/2023 dated 23.02.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to recommend the petitioner's village to the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents to include the Gazette Notification and permit the petitioner to conduct Vadamadu Manjuvirattu based on the

¶14

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

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.8745 of 2023

¶17

G.O(MS)No.7 Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries (AH3) Department dated 21.07.2017.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶21

Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Government Pleader takes

¶22

notice for the respondents.

¶23

The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd Respondent in Na.Ka.D1/3796/2023 dated 23.02.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to recommend the petitioner's village to the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents to be included in the Gazette Notification and permit the petitioner to conduct Vadamadu Manjuvirattu, based on G.O(MS)No.7 Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries (AH3) Department, dated 21.07.2017.

¶24

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

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.8745 of 2023

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's village is consisting of 1000 families and most of the villagers are agriculturists. In the petitioner's village, every year, Vadamadu Manjuvirattu is conducted enabling the villagers to take part in the said event. When there was a Jallikattu protest, people from the petitioner's village supported the protest, as a result, the Jallikattu has been justified. The petitioner also made a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to include his village in the Gazette notification for conducting Vadamadu Manjuuvirattu, but the 2^nd respondent by non application of mind, rejected the said request.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that recently, the 3^rd respondent has recommended to the respondents 2 and 3 to include other villages in the Gazette Notification. Based on the said recommendation, the 1^st respondent has issued G.O(D)No.268, dated 31.03.2023 by including four new villages. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that there is no justification or reason to exclude the petitioner's village, as a result, the villagers of the petitioner's village are not able to hold Vadamadu Manjuvirattu. Learned

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.8745 of 2023

¶32

counsel further contended that the 1^st respondent cannot discriminate the petitioner on the one hand by not allowing to conduct Vadamadu Manjuvirattu and on the other hand include other villages in the Gazette Notification enabling them to hold Vadamadu Manjuvirattu. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶33

5. Heard both sides.

¶34

It is the contention of the petitioner that Vadamadu Manjuvirattu is conducted every year from time immemorial and the respondents have rejected the request of the petitioner to include the petitioner's village in the Gazette Notification. Perusal of the impugned order shows that rejection for conducting Vadamadu Manjuvirattu has been made on the ground that the petitioner's village has not produced any evidence with regard to the organization of Vadamadu Manjuvirattu and that the petitioner's village is not listed out in the Gazette Notification. We do not find any justification in the impugned rejection order. We are of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to conduct the said event on par with other villages in the Gazette

¶35

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

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.8745 of 2023

¶38

Notification. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for this year, Vadamadu Manjuvirattu is scheduled to be held during the month of May 2023. Considering the fact that the event of Vadamadu Manjuvirattu is conducted from time immemorial and the fact that the petitioner's village is not included in the Gazette Notification while other villages have been included, the impugned order is quashed. We direct the 3^rd respondent/District Collector, Sivagangai District to pass orders permitting the petitioner to conduct Vadamadu Manjuvirattu subject to other conditions. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

7. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶40

[T.R., A.C.J.] [R.S.M., J.] NCC : Yes / No 26.04.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No bala

¶41

¶42

The Principal Secretary, Animal and Husbandry Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.8745 of 2023

¶46

T.RAJA, A.C.J. and

¶47

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶48

bala

¶49

The Commissioner, Animal and Husbandry Welfare Department, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.

¶50

The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶51

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.8745 of 2023 DATED : 26.04.2023

¶52

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

¶53

Page 6 of 6

Mariyaselvaraj v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyaselvaraj v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gnanaselva Pappa Vs the Commissioner

Balamurugan Vs S.Aneesh Sekhar

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs S. Sujatha

The Principal Secretary Vs Victoria Joseph

The Project Director Vs B.Thavamani

The District Educational Officer, Vs S. Albert