Disposed

E.Sankaran v. Kavitha priyadharshini

Madras HC19 Jan 2024CONT P(MD)/2280/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with directions to ensure peaceful temple festivals with adequate security and religious freedom. The Court found that while the festival was conducted, disputes regarding vegetarian and non-vegetarian feasts persisted. The petition was closed with a direction to find an amicable solution for future conduct.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed with a direction to the Joint Commissioner to find an amicable solution between the groups to perform Kodai festival in a peaceful manner in the coming years.

E.Sankaran Vs Kavitha priyadharshini — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CONT.P.(MD)No.2280 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CONT.P.(MD)No.2280 of 2023 in WP(MD) No.21919 of 2023

¶7

E.Sankaran ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.Mrs.Kavitha Priyadharshini, The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

2.Mr.Innos Kumar, The Inspector of Police, Muneerpallam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. ...Contemnors/Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying this Court to punish the contemnor/respondent for committing contempt of court by willfully disobeying the order passed by this Court in WP(MD) No.21919 of 2023, dated 12.09.2023.

¶12

1/7

¶13

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

¶14

CONT.P.(MD)No.2280 of 2023

¶15

For Petitioner :Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For Respondents :Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner has filed a writ petition in WP(MD) No. 21919 of 2023 for a mandamus directing the respondents to provide adequate security for conducting festival in Selva Vinayagar Temple, Nallatchi Amman Temple, Thalavaimadasamy Temple and Utchimakali Amman Temple as per the existing customary rituals. This Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 12.09.2023 in the following terms:-

¶18

“ 7.Since the festival is scheduled to be held this month, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶19

“(i) The 2^nd respondent shall appoint a Special Officer to the temples in dispute for conducting the festival for this year in a peaceful manner; The Special Officer shall ensure that all the community people are permitted to offer worship;

¶20

(ii) The 6^th respondent shall provide adequate police protection for conducting the festival;

¶21

2/7

¶22

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

¶23

CONT.P.(MD)No.2280 of 2023

¶24

(iii) If the other groups want to offer nonvegetarian food to the deity, they can file an application before the 2^nd respondent / the Joint Commissioner adduce evidence, establish the same and get their grievance redressed and if such an application is filed, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶25

This contempt petition has been filed that the above order of this Court has not been complied with and the respondents have not taken any steps to conduct the temple festival as directed by this Court.

¶26

In response to this contempt petition, the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that the temple festival was conducted peacefully. However, during the festival, there was no offering of vegetarian food or non vegetarian food. This is also confirmed by

¶27

3/7

¶28

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

¶29

CONT.P.(MD)No.2280 of 2023

¶30

one P.Innose Kumar, Inspector of Police, Muneerpallam Police Station, Tirunelveli District/ the 2^nd respondent herein.

¶31

4.In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the report of the Joint Commissioner, dated 28.09.2023 submitted that the temple festival was not conducted despite the orders of this Court by anticipating law and order problem. Therefore, this Court by order, dated 15.12.2023 ordered statutory notice to the respondents.

¶32

5.The Joint Commissioner appeared before this Court and also filed an affidavit stating that there are two groups among the devotees and they are diagonally opposite to each other. One group has insisted for vegetarian feast and the another group has insisted for non-vegetarian feast during the festival. Therefore, a meeting was conducted on 25.09.2023 by a Special Officer and it was attended by both the groups. Pillaimar community people has insisted for vegetarian feast and the others have insisted for non-

¶33

4/7

¶34

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

¶35

CONT.P.(MD)No.2280 of 2023

¶36

vegetarian feast along with vegetarian feast. It was also suggested to conduct the festival separately. However both the groups have not agreed for the same. Therefore, apprehending law and order problem and to avoid any untoward incident, they have conducted the festival without any offering any feast (padayal) on that day. She further states that she has conducted an enquiry and as per the practice prevailing in the temple, vegetarian feast was made in front of the deity and non-vegetarian feast was made in the Artha Mandapam.

¶37

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have made a suggestion that in order to avoid law and order problem, the temple festival can be performed in the temple on two different dates.

¶38

7.In view of the submissions made by either side and considering the fact that the Department is taking some steps to solve the issue amicably between the groups, this Contempt petition is closed with a direction to the Joint Commissioner to find out an

¶39

5/7

¶40

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

¶41

CONT.P.(MD)No.2280 of 2023

¶42

amicable solution between the two groups to perform Kodai festival in a peaceful manner in the coming years.

¶43

19.01.2024

¶44

NCC :Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vrn To

¶45

1.Mrs.Kavitha Priyadharshini, The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Tirunelveli District.

¶46

2.Mr.Innos Kumar, The Inspector of Police, Muneerpallam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶47

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

CONT.P.(MD)No.2280 of 2023

¶49

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶50

vrn

¶51

Order made in CONT.P.(MD)No.2280 of 2023 in WP(MD) No.21919 of 2023

¶52

19.01.2024

¶53

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

E.Sankaran v. Kavitha priyadharshini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Sankaran v. Kavitha priyadharshini

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

Thiyagarajan Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Karuppasamy Vs the Branch Manager

Oxford Matriculation School Vs the Director of Matriculation

M.Abul Kalam Azath, Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Haja Akbar Aleem Vs The Government of India

M.Amirthavalli, Vs Union of India, Rep by Its