Disposed

Vishwadass v. The District Collector

Madras HC29 Apr 2024WP(MD)/10087/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction for conducting temple festival amidst title disputes and criminal cases. Court declined specific direction, instead directing the Tahsildar to consider the request in a peace committee meeting and police to ensure law and order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar to consider request in peace committee; Police directed to ensure no incidents if festival conducted.

Vishwadass Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.10087 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.10087 of 2024

Vishwadass

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent, Sivagangai District.

¶14

5.The Inspector of Police, Somanathapuram Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶15

6.Ulagaththal ... Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

____________ Page No. 1 of 6_

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.10087 of 2024

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first to fifth respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the Arulmigu Sri Sadaiyandi, Arulmigu Sri Soolapidari and Arulmigu Sri Segudapidari temple festival on 30.04.2024 and 01.05.2024 situated at Periyar Nagar, Anna Nagar, Amaravathi Pudur, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District based on the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2024.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader For R4 & R5 : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R6 : Mr.S.Selva Aditya

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first to fifth respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the temple festival on 30.04.2024 and 01.05.2024 in Arulmigu Sri Sadaiyandi, Arulmigu Sri Soolapidari and Arulmigu Sri Segudapidari situated at Periyar Nagar, Anna Nagar, Amaravathi Pudur, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2024.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 2 of 6_

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.10087 of 2024

¶26

The facts that emerged from the submissions of the learned

¶27

counsel for the petitioner are that there are disputes between the petitioner and the sixth respondent with regard to the rights over the aforesaid temples and that the sixth respondent has filed O.S.No.101 of 2021 before the District Munsif Court, Karaikudi claiming exclusive rights over the aforesaid temples. The said suit is said to have been renumbered as O.S.No.473 of 2022.

¶28

The learned Special Government Pleader for the first to third

¶29

respondents would submit that for the last three years, the temple festival has not been conducted despite attempts of the officials to broker peace between the petitioner's group and the sixth respondent's group. It is submitted that the peace committee meeting is going to be held before the third respondent today (29.04.2024) in the evening.

¶30

By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the temple festival was conducted during the preceding years as well despite being difference of opinion between the petitioner and the sixth respondent.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 3 of 6_

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.10087 of 2024

¶33

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the fourth and fifth respondents would submit that criminal complaint has been filed by one Senthil Kumar against the petitioner in C.S.R.No.82/2021 before the Somanathapuram Police Station. Similar complaints were also registered in Crime Nos.85/2021 & 86/2021 and C.S.R.Nos.03/2024, 04/2024, 61/2024 & 73/2024.

¶34

Considering the above, there cannot be a positive direction as prayed for in this Writ Petition. However, since the temple festival is scheduled to be held on 30.04.2024 (tomorrow) and on 01.05.2024 (day after tomorrow), there shall be a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's request in the peace committee meeting and take suitable decision as to whether the temple festival can be conducted.

¶35

In case the temple festival is conducted on these days, the fourth and fifth respondents are directed to ensure that there is an adequate number of enforcement near the vicinity of the temple and there is no undue incidents.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 6_

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.10087 of 2024

¶38

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶39

29.04.2024

¶40

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order JEN

¶41

Copy To:

¶42

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Sivagangai District.

¶43

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶44

3.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶45

4.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent, Sivagangai District.

¶46

5.The Inspector of Police, Somanathapuram Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 5 of 6_

¶48

W.P.(MD) No.10087 of 2024

¶49

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶50

JEN

¶51

W.P.(MD) No.10087 of 2024

¶52

29.04.2024

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 6 of 6_

Vishwadass v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwadass 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeyaraj G Vs Arulmighu Kallagar Sundaraja Perumal Temple

P.Vadivelan, Vs the Sub Registrar

C.Chinnakaruppan Vs The District Revenue Officer

M/s. Janani International Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s. Raghav Industries Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Customs

M/s.Niviz Entertainment(Opc) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Mrs.Anita Udeep Vs Mr.v.Shree Nataraj