Allowed

Kasinadhan v. Meyyappan

Madras HC21 Aug 2024WA(MD)/1191/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench held that Writ Courts cannot invoke Constitutional morality to interfere with statutory authorities' jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act regarding temple customs. Having an effective alternative remedy, the Single Judge's order was set aside with liberty to approach the authorities.

What did the court decide?

Order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the Single Judge order was set aside. Liberty granted to move authorities under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act regarding ri

Kasinadhan Vs Meyyappan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.(MD).No.1191 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.A.(MD).No.1191 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.9163 and 9166 of 2024

¶7

1.Kasinadhan

¶8

2.Tamilarasan

3.Swaminadhan

... Appellants

-vs-

1.Meyyappan

2.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶15

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

¶16

5.The Tahsildar, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶17

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

¶18

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶19

W.A.(MD).No.1191 of 2024

¶20

6.The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶21

7.Senapathi

¶22

8.Somaiya ... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14318 of 2024, dated 05.07.2024.

¶24

For Appellants : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel For Mr.A.Aruljenifer For 1^st Respondent : Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai For Mr.A.Banumathy

¶25

For Respondents 2, 4 & 5 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader For Respondents 3 & 6 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.)

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶28

The appellants are aggrieved by the order by the learned Single Judge in and by which, the learned Single Judge invoked the principle of Constitutional morality and conferred a right on a particular community people to perform Mandagapadi on any one of days during the festival of the temple.

¶29

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

¶30

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶31

W.A.(MD).No.1191 of 2024 2.No doubt, untouchability in any form has to be frowned upon but

¶32

at the same time, the Constitutional Courts, which do not have the advantage of entering upon the factual domain, cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction vested in other statutory authorities and issue directions invoking principles of Constitutional morality, which would run counter to the established practice or custom.

¶33

3.In the case on hand, the right is claimed to perform Mandagapadi in a temple. The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, provides a complete machinery to decide upon such rights. Section 63 of the Act, vests the power in the Officers nominated to decide the disputes. Section 63(e) of the Act empowers the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to decide whether any person is entitled to, by custom or otherwise , to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution as well as established usage of the religious institution in regard to any other matter.

¶34

4.Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would however contend that this temple is fairly a new temple. Therefore, there is no established usage. It is open to the authorities to frame a Scheme for administration of the temple and also provide for the manner in which, the festivals ought to be conducted. The invocation of principles of Constitutional morality in our considered opinion, in fact,

¶35

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

¶36

Page 3 of 6

¶37

W.A.(MD).No.1191 of 2024 impinges upon the exclusive jurisdiction that is vested in the authorities

¶38

constituted under a Statue. If there is no provision for redressing the grievances of the petitioners in the Writ Petition, we would not have the slightest hesitation to entertain the Writ Petition, particularly in the factual background, that is projected. However, we find that there is a machinery, which is an effective alternative remedy where facts can be tested is available and hence, we do not think that the Writ Court was justified in exercising the powers under Article 226.

¶39

5.We are informed that the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, dated 18.07.2024, has been complied with and hence, the controversy for this year has been settled. In order to prevent recurrence of such practices, we would only request the authorities to decide any claim before them before the festival season for the next year i.e., during the month of June – July of 2025. The order of the learned Single Judge is therefore, set aside with liberty to the petitioners before the learned Single Judge, to move the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1959, seeking a right to perform Mandagapadi on any day during the next year and the authorities will decide the same well in advance to avoid recurrence of similar situation during the next year's festival.

¶40

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

¶41

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶42

W.A.(MD).No.1191 of 2024

¶43

6.The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above observation. No

¶44

Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶45

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]

¶46

21.08.2024

¶47

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet: Yes Mrn/Sml To

¶48

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶49

2.The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶50

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

¶51

4.The Tahsildar, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶52

5.The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶54

W.A.(MD).No.1191 of 2024

¶55

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶56

Mrn / Sml

¶57

W.A.(MD).No.1191 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.9163 and 9166 of 2024

¶58

21.08.2024

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 6 of 6_

Kasinadhan v. Meyyappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasinadhan v. Meyyappan

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

J.Valarmery Vs The District Collector

Pappa Chrishma.C Vs The Chief Manager

Karpaga Narayanan .N Vs The District Collector

The Vice Chancellor Vs R.Ravichandran

Chellappa.S Vs The Chairman / District Collector

Dinesh Babu. K Vs The Branch Manager