Dismissed

Pushparaj.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC4 May 2023WP(MD)/9544/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing revenue and police authorities to ensure a temple festival was conducted. Court dismissed the petition as misconceived, noting a peace committee meeting had resulted in an agreement for peaceful conduct and the private respondent was not amenable to Article 12 jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus not issued; writ petition dismissed with no costs.

Pushparaj.K Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9544 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.05.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9544 of 2023

K.Pushparaj

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai Revenue Division, Aruppukkottai,

¶11

Virudhunagar District.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur Revenue Division, Sattur,

¶13

Virudhunagar District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶15

The Sub Inspector of Police, Appayanayakkanpatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶16

Murugesan ... Respondents

¶17

1/7

¶18

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

¶19

Prayer

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.9544 of 2023

¶21

Prayer :Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to take steps to conduct Sri Perumal Kovil Festival on 05.05.2023 (Chithirai Pournami) at Gopalapuram Village, Virudhunagar Taluk, based on the 1^st respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/3321/2023 dated 13.04.2022 and consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2023.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu

¶23

For R1 to R4 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Special Govt. Pleader

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus, directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to take steps to conduct Sri Perumal Kovil Festival

¶26

on 05.05.2023 (Chithirai Pournami) at Gopalapuram Village, Virudhunagar Taluk, based on the 1^st respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/3321/2023 dated 13.04.2022 and consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2023.

¶27

2/7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.9544 of 2023

¶30

The petitioner is the resident of Gopalapuram Village. In

¶31

that village, a Temple, namely, Sri Perumal Kovil, is situated in S.No.54/35 at Gopalapuram Village, Virudhunagar Taluk. The said Temple is a public temple and the village people are worshipping the Lord Perumal for more than 50 decades and the Chithira Pournami festival was also conducted by three communities people every year by collecting ''Thalai Kattu Vari''. However, the 5^th respondent's community people have conducted the temple festival last year, without following the procedures and not allowed the petitioner's Community people to participate in the temple festival. Since the said Perumal Temple is a public temple, the petitioner community people are also entitled to conduct the temple festival. The petitioner further alleges that the 5^th respondent has also refused to collect ''Thalai Kattu Vari'' from the petitioner community people. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents 2 and 3 on 06.04.2023. Since the said representation has not been considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.9544 of 2023

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶36

submit that it would be suffice for the petitioner if a direction is issued to the 5^th respondent to collect ''Thalai Kattu Vari'' from all community people for conducting the Chithira Pournami festival.

¶37

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that a peace committee meeting was conducted on 29.04.2023, in which, the petitioner and his community people as well as the 5^th respondent and his community people have participated and also agreed to conduct the Chithira Pournami festival this year in a peaceful manner. In this regard, he has produced a copy of the proceedings dated 29.04.2023.

¶38

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 5^th respondent has refused to collect ''Thalai Kattu Vari'' from his Community people. But, the fact remains that the 5^th respondent is not coming under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

4/7

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.9544 of 2023

¶42

Therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the 5^th respondent. This Court perused the proceedings dated 29.04.2023 produced by the learned Special Government Pleader. It appears that in the peace committee meeting conducted on 29.04.2023, both the petitioner community people and 5^th respondent community people have participated and both parties also agreed to conduct the Chithira Pournami Festival this year in a peaceful manner and no condition was imposed for collecting ''Thalai Kattu Vari'' from any other community people. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶43

04.05.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No CM/ogy

¶44

5/7

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.9544 of 2023

¶47

¶48

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai Revenue Division, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶49

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur Revenue Division, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

¶50

The Tahsildar, Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶51

The Sub Inspector of Police, Appayanayakkanpatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶52

6/7

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.9544 of 2023

¶55

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

¶56

CM/ogy

¶57

W.P.(MD)No.9544 of 2023

¶58

04.05.2023

¶59

7/7

¶60

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

Pushparaj.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushparaj.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

B.Ambujam Vs The Regional Manager

S.Sangeetha Vs S.Suresh

M.Mathialagan Vs Krishnan

M/s. Maxivision Eye Hospitals Private Limited Vs The Commissioner

Suba Kalimuthu Vs The Commissioner of

Seema Vs The Regional Passport Officer