Disposed

Periya Puravi.T v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC29 Jan 2024WP(MD)/1648/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Tahsildar's appointment of an Ad-hoc Committee for temple festivals. The court held the Tahsildar lacked competence but directed the Department Inspector to conduct festivals peacefully to prevent law and order issues.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's writ petition was disposed of, directing the Inspector of HR&CE Department to preside over the festivals peacefully without any group presiding.

Periya Puravi.T Vs The Assistant… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.1648 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1648 of 2024

T.Periya Puravi

... Petitioner

versus

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department,

¶11

Perambalur.

¶12

The Inspector, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department,

¶13

Thuraiyur, Trichy District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to conduct the Ma Vilakku and Ammasamy Poojas during the month of January and also ther thiruvizha in the month of August 2024 at the temple premises as usual by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 13.10.2023.

¶16

1/8

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.1648 of 2024

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameelarasu

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.P.Subba Raj, Special Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner claims that he is one of the five members, recognized by the Thasildar, Thuraiyur, in the Peace Committee Meeting dated 29.07.2023, to conduct festivals in Selva Maha Mariamman and Selva Vinayagar Koil at Ammapatti, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. Now, he has approached this Court for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to conduct Maa Vilakku (khtpsf;F) and Ammasamy Poojas during the month of January 2024 and also the car festival in the month of August 2024 at the temple premises, by considering his representation dated 13.10.2023.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was some dispute between the villagers during the festival in the

¶24

2/8

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.1648 of 2024

¶27

last year. Therefore, a peace committee meeting was convened by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, in the presence of villagers, members from the Revenue Department, Police Department and the officials of the HR&CE Department and a decision was taken to constitute an Ad-hoc Committee, consisting of five members, namely, (i) Periya Puravi, (petitioner herein) (ii) Nandakumar, (iii) Kaliya Perumal, (iv) Durai Pandian, (v) Solamuthu, to conduct the temple festivals. Pursuant to the same, the said Committee conducted the temple festivals peacefully. Now, the first respondent has not allowed this Committee to perform the temple festival which is scheduled to be conducted in the month of January 2024. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶28

Today, the second respondent/the Inspector of HR&CE

¶29

Department, Thuraiyur, is present before this Court. The learned Special Government Pleader, based on the instructions given by the second respondent, submits that the Temple situates in a Government

¶30

3/8

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.1648 of 2024

¶33

Promboke Land in Survey No.130/1 and no trustees have been appointed for this temple so far. He further submits that there is a dispute with regard to the administration of the temple and a Civil Suit is also pending before the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur in O.S.No. 172 of 2017. In view of the dispute prevailing between several groups, the temple festival was not conducted on the previous occasions. In this regard, 1^st Peace Committee Meeting was conducted on 11.05.2022. Thereafter, pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P. (MD)No.17422 of 2022, 2^nd Peace Committee Meeting was conducted on 07.09.2022. Thereafter, 3^rd Peace Committee Meeting was conducted on 10.05.2023, 4^th Peace Committee Meeting was conducted on 29.07.2023 and 5^th Peace Committee Meeting was conducted on 02.09.2023. In the 5^th Peace Committee Meeting conducted on 02.09.2023, the parties have agreed to withdraw the Civil Suit pending before the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur, in O.S.No.172 of 2017 and based on that, the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, has appointed the Ad-hoc Committee consisting of the above five members and permitted them to

¶34

4/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.1648 of 2024

¶37

conduct the temple festivals. Pursuant to the same, the temple festival was conducted from 01.08.2023 to 09.08.2023 peacefully. But, the parties have not withdrawn the suit in O.S.No.172 of 2017 and the same is still pending before the Court. Now, the villagers are raising objections for conducting the temple festival by this Ad-hoc Committee. The Department is also apprehending law and order problem.

¶38

This Court also verified the same with the second respondent/the Inspector of HR&CE Department, Thuraiyur, who is present before this Court. She has specifically stated that the villagers are having objections for the conduct of the festival by this Ad-hoc Committee which was constituted by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, on 29.07.2023. She has also produced the representation of the villagers and the statements recorded from some of the villagers.

¶39

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶40

5/8

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.1648 of 2024

¶43

The petitioner claims that he is one of the five members,

¶44

recognized by the Thasildar, Thuraiyur, on 29.07.2023 to conduct the temple festival. This arrangement has been made by the Tahsildar, as an interim arrangement for conducting the temple festivals. Now, the temple festival was over.

¶45

The Tahsildar is not a competent person to pass such order appointing an Ad-hoc Committee in a Peace Committee Meeting. There is no statutory provisions enabling the Tahsildar to conduct a Peace Committee Meeting and the resolution, if any, passed in the Peace Committee Meeting, is not binding on the parties. In view of the

¶46

same, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶47

However, considering the grievance of the villagers, the second respondent/Inspector of HR&CE Department, Thuraiyur, shall preside over the functions and conduct the festivals without any break,

¶48

6/8

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.1648 of 2024

¶51

enabling the devotees to have dharshan and offer their prayers. The second respondent shall also ensure that the festivals in the temples are performed peacefully, without permitting anybody from the groups to preside over the functions.

¶52

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶53

29.01.2024

¶54

ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.

¶55

¶56

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department,

¶57

Perambalur.

¶58

The Inspector, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department,

¶59

Thuraiyur, Trichy District.

¶60

7/8

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.(MD)No.1648 of 2024

¶63

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶64

ogy

¶65

W.P.(MD)No.1648 of 2024

¶66

29.01.2024

¶67

8/8

¶68

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

Periya Puravi.T v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periya Puravi.T v. The Assistant Commissioner

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

M G Exim Vs The Asst Commissioner (Circle) (St)

Balasubramanian.R Vs The Regional Transport Officer

Tvl. G.R. Hardwares Vs The State Tax Officer - II (Gst) /

Seeni, S/O. Palanisamy Vs the Thasildar

K.Arunachala Pandian, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

C.Nambiyappan, Vs the Tahsildar