Disposed

S.Rajasekhar v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC14 Mar 2024WP/6814/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing authorities to conduct the annual Brahmotsavam of the temple at Kancheepuram from March 2024 despite pending renovation works following balalayam. The State stated the Panguni Uthiram Festival would be held with modifications. Both sides agreed to a stakeholder meeting; the writ petition was disposed with those observations.

What the court decided

AI extract

S.Rajasekhar Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P. No. 6814 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. No. 6814 of 2024

S.Rajasekhar

… Petitioner

-vs-

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Tamil Culture Development and Religious Endowments, Fort St. George,

¶11

Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai.

¶13

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Kancheepuram - 631 502.

¶14

Velmohan

¶15

Jagannathan

¶16

Vasanthi

¶17

S.L.N.S.Vijayakumar

¶18

Varadhan

¶19

The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Temple, Kancheepuram - 631 502. ... Respondents

¶20

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

¶21

1/6

¶22

W.P. No. 6814 of 2024

¶23

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents herein to perform the mandatory "Annual Brahmotsavam" of Arulmighu Sri Ekambaranathar Temple (hereinafter referred to as 'the Temple'), Kancheepuram starting from 14.03.2024 and concluding on 27.03.2024 within the 2^nd Prakaram of the Temple precints by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2024 and 05.03.2024.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr. T.S.Vijaya Raghavan For Respondents : Mr. N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader (for R1 to R3 & R9)

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Heard Mr. T.S.Vijaya Raghavan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. N.R.R.Arn Natarajan, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First to Third and Ninth Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶27

Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the Writ Petition, which would not cause any prejudice to the Fourth to Eighth Respondents, notice to them is dispensed with.

¶28

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

¶29

2/6

¶30

W.P. No. 6814 of 2024

¶31

It is the case of the Petitioner that it is mandatory to conduct the Brahmotsavam of Arulmighu Sri Ekambaranathar Temple, Kancheepuram (hereinafter referred to as 'the Temple' for short) every year, but as no action has been taken to conduct the Brahmotsavam in March 2024 despite the representations dated 08.02.2024 and 05.03.2024 made by him in that regard, it has necessitated the filing of this Writ Petition.

¶32

In response, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First to Third and Ninth Respondents has filed memo dated 13.03.2024 explaining as follows:-

¶33

" It was proposed to conduct the kumbabhishekam for the

¶34

Temple and in this regard thirupani works were commenced. The balalayam of the Temple was conducted on 28.06.2023 and 11.02.2024. The thirupani works are being undertaken in the 2^nd (at Nataraja Sannidhi), 3^rd and 4^th prakarams. The annual Panguni Uthiram Festival scheduled from 14.03.2024 till 28.03.2024 will be conducted by doing thirumanjanam and Abishekam for the Urchavar idol without conducting the Thiruveedi Ula since balalayam has been conducted for the kodimaram and Rishi Gopuram."

¶35

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

¶36

3/6

¶37

W.P. No. 6814 of 2024

¶38

In view of the same, it is accepted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it may not be possible to conduct the Brahmotsavam in March 2024 for the Temple in the usual manner as had been followed in the previous years. However, it is agreed by Learned Counsel for both sides that a meeting would be conducted at 4.00 p.m. on 14.03.2024 (today) to examine the suggestions made by the Petitioner and other stakeholders for performing the Brahmotsavam with appropriate modifications taking into consideration the prevalent situation in the Temple premises. It is expected that the parties would arrived at a consensus for peacefully conducting the Brahmotsavam in a satisfactory manner.

¶39

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed with the aforesaid observations. No costs.

¶40

14.03.2024

¶41

Index: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No

¶42

Note: Issue order copy by 22.05.2024.

¶43

vjt

¶44

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

¶45

4/6

¶46

W.P. No. 6814 of 2024

¶47

¶48

The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Tamil Culture Development and Religious Endowments, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶49

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai.

¶50

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Kancheepuram - 631 502.

¶51

The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Temple, Kancheepuram - 631 502.

¶52

Copy to

¶53

Velmohan, Trustee, Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Temple, Kancheepuram - 631 502.

¶54

Jagannathan, Trustee, Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Temple, Kancheepuram - 631 502.

¶55

Vasanthi, Trustee, Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Temple, Kancheepuram - 631 502.

¶56

S.L.N.S.Vijayakumar, Trustee, Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Temple, Kancheepuram - 631 502.

¶57

Varadhan, Trustee, Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Temple, Kancheepuram - 631 502.

¶58

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

¶59

5/6

¶60

W.P. No. 6814 of 2024

¶61

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶62

vjt

¶63

W.P. No. 6814 of 2024

¶64

14.03.2024

¶65

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

¶66

6/6

S.Rajasekhar v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S.Rajasekhar v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Ravichandran Vs the District Collector

N.Ravichandran Vs the Member Secretary

N.Ravichandran Vs the Member Secretary

Palanisamy Vs the Deputy Registdrar of

V S S Krishna Vs the General Manager/First Appellate Authority

M/D.Jaya Soap Works Pvt. Ltd., Vs the District Collector