Disposed

Hariharan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Nov 2024WP/32753/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging interference with temple rituals, directing the Government Secretary to re-affirm an affidavit confirming that no flag hoisting or brahmotsavam would be conducted at the temple, while noting the existence of a status quo order by the Sub Court. no order as to costs was passed.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of petitions; directed re-affirmation of affidavit confirming no flag hoisting/rituals; status quo order to be observed.

Hariharan Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.Nos.32753 & 33130 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.11.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶8

W.P.Nos.32753 & 33130 of 2024

¶9

¶10

W.M.P.Nos.35592, 35885, 35887 & 35889 of 2024

W.P.No.32753 of 2024

Hariharan

Petitioner

Vs.

The Government of Tamil Nadu

¶16

rep. by the Secretary to Government Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department

¶17

Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶18

The Commissioner

¶19

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶20

The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department

¶21

Page 1 of 9

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.Nos.32753 & 33130 of 2024

¶24

Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶25

The Deputy Commissioner/Jewel Appraiser Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department Cuddalore.

¶26

The Inspector Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department Chidambaram.

¶27

The Secretary/General Dikshidhar Arulmighu Sabhanayagar Thirukoil Chidambaram Town and Taluk Cuddalore District. 7. The Executive Officer Arulmighu Thillai Govindaraja Perumal Temple Chidambaram Town and Taluk Cuddalore District. .. Respondents W.P.No.33130 of 2024 S.Nickel Kumar .. Petitioner Vs.

¶28

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Department of Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶29

The Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable

¶30

___________ Page 2 of 9_

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.Nos.32753 & 33130 of 2024

¶33

Endowments Department 119, Mahatma Gandhi Road Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 039.

¶34

The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Manjakuppam, Cuddalore – 607 001.

¶35

Sri Sabanayagar Temple Rep. by its Secretary Podu Dikshitar Chidambaram - 608 001.

¶36

The Managing Trustee Arulmighu Thillai Govindaraja Perumal Thirukoil Chidambaram Cuddalore District. ..

¶37

.. Respondents

¶38

Prayer : W.P.No.32753 of 2024 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to drop the proposal as decided by the HR&CE Department to remove the old Flag Post of Thillai Govindarajar Temple and erection of a new in its place; and

¶39

W.P.No.33130 of 2024 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to Na.Ka.No.2596/2024/A2 dated 10.10.2024 issued by the 3^rd respondent herein from interfering with matters of religion, including ritual and ceremony.

¶40

For Petitioners

¶41

: Mr.D.Saikumarran (W.P.No.32753/24)

¶42

Mr.D.Baskar

¶43

___________ Page 3 of 9_

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.Nos.32753 & 33130 of 2024

¶46

(W.P.No.33130/24)

¶47

For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)

¶48

COMMON ORDER

¶49

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶50

Further to our order dated 14.11.2024, an affidavit of one

¶51

P.N.Sridar, IAS, affirmed on 18.11.2024, is filed.

¶52

At the outset, we have to note that the affidavit has not been

¶53

affirmed before an advocate, but before a Joint Commissioner (Legal). We are not satisfied that the Joint Commissioner (Legal) is entitled to administer oath to the affiant. Therefore, the said P.N.Sridhar, IAS, is directed to re-affirm before the advocate in Court, within one week from today.

¶54

When we pointed out to Mr.Natarajan that the recitals in

¶55

___________ Page 4 of 9_

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.Nos.32753 & 33130 of 2024

¶58

paragraph 6 that the flag will not be hoisted and brahmotsavam for 7^th respondent will not be conducted are not correct, since respondent No.7 is

¶59

the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Thillai Govindaraja Perumal Temple (in W.P.No.32753/2024), Mr.Natarajan clarified that instead of the words '7^th respondent' in paragraph 6, it may be read as Arulmighu Thillai Govindaraja Perumal Temple. At the same time, the affidavit is not in compliance with the order passed by this Court, because, we wanted the Commissioner to file an affidavit stating that no brahmotsavam will be done to the flag post and no flag hoisting will be done. It is not so stated.

¶60

Therefore, purely by way of indulgence, we give P.N.Sridhar, IAS, one more opportunity to file a fresh affidavit stating exactly what has been directed, that is to say “no brahmotsavam will be done to the flag post and no flag hoisting will be done” at the Arulmighu Thillai Govindaraja Perumal Temple. This affidavit shall be filed and a copy thereof be served on petitioners within one week.

¶61

In the affidavit, it is admitted that on 04.11.2024, an interim

¶62

___________ Page 5 of 9_

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.Nos.32753 & 33130 of 2024

¶65

order came to be passed by the Sub Court at Chidambaram, whereby, the Court was pleased to order status quo till the next date of hearing, which is 20.11.2024. The Commissioner ought to have brought this to our notice. Mr.Natarajan expresses regret, but has no explanation as to why it was not brought to our notice. The order passed by the Sub Court shall not be breached by respondents.

¶66

The writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all the interim applications stand disposed of.

¶67

(K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ) (SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.) 19.11.2024

¶68

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶69

kpl

¶70

¶71

The Secretary to Government Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶72

Page 6 of 9

¶73

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

¶74

W.P.Nos.32753 & 33130 of 2024

¶75

Administration Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶76

The Commissioner

¶77

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶78

The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶79

The Deputy Commissioner/Jewel Appraiser Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department Cuddalore.

¶80

The Inspector Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department Chidambaram.

¶81

The Secretary/General Dikshidhar Arulmighu Sabhanayagar Thirukoil Chidambaram Town and Taluk Cuddalore District.

¶82

The Executive Officer Arulmighu Thillai Govindaraja Perumal Temple Chidambaram Town and Taluk Cuddalore District.

¶83

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary

¶84

Page 7 of 9

¶85

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

¶86

W.P.Nos.32753 & 33130 of 2024

¶87

Department of Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

¶88

The Managing Trustee Arulmighu Thillai Govindaraja Perumal Thirukoil Chidambaram Cuddalore District.

¶89

___________ Page 8 of 9_

¶90

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

¶91

W.P.Nos.32753 & 33130 of 2024

¶92

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

¶93

(kpl)

¶94

W.P.Nos.32753 & 33130 of 2024

¶95

19.11.2024

¶96

___________ Page 9 of 9_

¶97

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

Hariharan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariharan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasanthi Suresh Vs Jayachitra Sahaya Josephine

R.Kirankumar Vs the Rcovery Officer

Massey Ferguson Corp Vs Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited

M.Mohan Vs PARVATHA(DIED)1.P.R.Lakshmi Bai

M/S.Suganthi Educational Trust, Vs M/S.Cfm Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

M/s.Sripathy Associates Vs The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Drat, Chennai