Disposed

D.Dharmasamvarthini v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Nov 2024WMP(MD)/10202/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim order grants permission for the petitioner to conduct the Vaikasi Visakam festival in the Arulmighu Thirumeni Amman Temple during May 2018, directing authorities to hand over idols and provide police protection, while noting the temple is a public institution.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction to allow petitioner to conduct Vaikasi Visakam festival from 19.05.2018 to 29.05.2018, handing over idols, and providing police protection.

D.Dharmasamvarthini Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Special Original Jurisdiction )

¶4

Thursday, the Seventeenth day of May Two Thousand Eighteen

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SUNDAR

¶7

WMP(MD) No.10202 of 2018 IN

¶8

WP(MD) No.11156 of 2018

¶9

DHARMASAMVARTHINI ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶10

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER THANJAVUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶13

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THANJAVUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶14

4 THE TAHSILDAR

¶15

ORATHANADU TALUK

¶16

THANAJVUR DISTRICT.

¶17

5 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, THANAVUR.

¶18

6 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, THANAVUR.

¶19

(*)7.CHELLAKANNU, S/O.RAJAPPA MUDALIAR, KILAMANGALAM NORTH, PAPPANADU POST,ORATHANADU POST, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS (R7 IS IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17/05/2018 IN WMP(MD)NO.10259/2018 IN WP(MD)NO.11156/2018)

¶20

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ will be pleased to direct the respondents herein to allow the petitioner to perform poojas only to the original main deity A/m.Thirumeni Amman, its urchavamurthis and other

¶21

¶22

urchavamurthis of Soolapidari and Soolapidari (Lotus) in her family temple A/O.Thirumeni Amman Temple, Avidanallavijayapuram, Pappanadu, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District, during Vaikasi Visagam Festival scheduled to be conducted by the petitioner from 19.05.2018 to 29.05.2018

¶23

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.VEERAKATHIRAVAN, learned Senior Counsel leading the counsel M/S.P.VADIVEL, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.J.PADMAVATHI DEVI, Special Government Pleader for R1 to R6 and of MR.N.DILIP KUMAR, Advocate for R7 the court made the following order:-

¶24

Subject matter of the main Writ Petition is a Temple which goes by name Arulmighu Thirumeni Amman Temple at Avidanallavijaypuram, Pappanadu, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District (hereinafter referred to as the said Temple for the purpose of convenience and clarity).

¶25

2.The issue in the Writ Petition pertains to performance of Vaikasi Visakam festival in the said Temple from 19.05.2018 to 29.05.2018 (both days inclusive).

¶26

3.This interim order is only an interim arrangement considering the paucity of time and considering the fact that the said festival commences day after tomorrow ie., 19.05.2018. This is set out to make it clear that this order will not affect or afflict the rights and contentions of the parties in the main Writ Petition.

¶27

4.It is brought to my notice that a similar relief was sought for by the petitioner herein last year in W.P(MD)No.9251 of 2017. To be noted, the impleaded seventh respondentR.Chellakkannu is respondent No.7 in that Writ Petition also.

¶28

5.The conditions and directions pertaining to the festival are articulated in paragraph No.8 of the order, dated 17.05.2017, which came to be passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition last year. There are only five directions/conditions and they are as follows:-

¶29

“a) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to accord permission, if so required, to conduct the celebration of festival.

¶30

b) The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department/fourth respondent shall ensure that the four idols which are used as Utsava Moorthies in the Temple A/m.Sri Thirumeni Amman Thirukoil, Avidanalavijayapuram,

¶31

¶32

Pappanadu, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District shall hand over to the petitioner on 18.05.2018 itself and necessary proceedings in that regard must be made prior to that.

¶33

c) The temple festival shall be conducted as per customary practices and the respondents 6 to 10 are required to extend their fullest co-operation in the celebration.

¶34

d) There shall not be any restriction to any of the worshipper from worshipping the idols during the festival.

¶35

e) There shall be adequate police protection for the peaceful conduct of the Temple festival”.

¶36

6.The said festival between 19.05.2018 and 29.05.2018 in the said Temple shall be conducted as per the aforesaid directions/conditions for this year also.

¶37

7.Any aspect which is not covered in the aforesaid directions/conditions shall be decided by respondent No.5-Joint Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and his decision shall be final.

¶38

8.As alluded to supra, this interim order is solely for the purpose of conducting the said festival. Two aspects that have been brought to the notice of this Court are that the writ petitioner has filed this Writ Petition styling herself as 'hereditary trustee' of the said Temple, but according to impleaded seventh respondent, recording her as 'hereditary trustee' after her spouse, has been set aside on 25.02.2000 by orders of the Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, relegating the parties to the civil Court. Other aspect which I have noticed is that the writ petitioner has proceeded on the basis that it is a private family Temple. This is completely untenable in the light of the fact that there is no disagreement before me that the writ petitioner's spouse was appointed as 'hereditary trustee' by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Therefore, it is obviously a public Temple.

¶39

9.Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Senior Counsel leading the counsel on record for the petitioner, very fairly submitted that this is the correct position and that the said Temple is necessarily a public Temple. This is recorded.

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10.A perusal of the chequered history shows that this festival in the said Temple is being conducted on the basis of interim orders.

¶41

¶42

11.Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader for the official respondents and learned counsel for the impleaded seventh respondent have all agreed to argue the main Writ Petition to give a complete quietus to all the issues. All the learned counsel have very fairly agreed to argue the main Writ Petition in the second week of July, 2018.

¶43

12.List the matter before the regular court in the second week of July, 2018.

¶44

sd/17/05/2018 / TRUE COPY /

¶45

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶46

PS TO

¶47

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶48

2 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER THANJAVUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶49

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THANJAVUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶50

4 THE TAHSILDAR, ORATHANADU TALUK THANAJVUR DISTRICT.

¶51

5 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, THANAVUR.

¶52

6 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, THANAVUR.

¶53

+1. C.C. to M/S.P.VADIVEL Advocate SR.No.8905 +1cc to MR.N.DILIPKUMAR, Advocate in SR.No.8977

¶54

GJM/CM/VR/RNB/18.5.18-4P-9C

¶55

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

D.Dharmasamvarthini v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Dharmasamvarthini v. the District Collector

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

R.Ganesan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.Aruna Vs The Director

N.Elumalai Vs The Union Territory of Puducherry

A. Ramalingam, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

C.R.Sundaram Vs The District Collector

G.Ravindran Vs The Sub Registrar