Disposed

P.Muthukumar v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC8 Aug 2024WP(MD)/19150/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court closed W.P.(MD).No.19150 of 2024 seeking permission for the Annathanam festival. Noting that parties agreed on collecting 'Thalaikattu Vari' and not claiming first honour, the court ordered the Joint Commissioner to nominate a Thakkar to supervise the festival's smooth conduct and receipt of the vari.

What did the court decide?

This Writ Petition stands closed. Joint Commissioner to nominate a Thakkar to supervise the conduct of the Annathanam festival and receipt of the 'Thalaikattu Vari' with cooperation from all parties.

P.Muthukumar Vs The Joint Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.19150 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.19150 of 2024

P.Muthukumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶11

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶12

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶13

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶14

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶15

4.The Inspector of Police, Tiruppathur Town Police Station, Tiruppathur, Sivagangai District.

¶16

5.A.Anbuselvan

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission to the petitioner's community people for peaceful worship

¶19

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

¶20

1/7

¶21

W.P.(MD).No.19150 of 2024

¶22

of God and further to conduct Annathanam Event scheduled on 09.08.2024 in the southern part of Sri Suyambu Solaichatha Ayyanar, Vazhai Satha Ayyanar Temple situated in SF.No.14/1, Thiruvudaiyarpatti Village, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District and consequently to direct the 4^th respondent to provide protection for Annathanam event, based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.08.2024, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader For R-4 : Mr.M.Vaikam Karunanithi Government Advocate For R-5 : Mr.E.Mareeskumar

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The present Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus directing direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission to the petitioner's community people for peaceful worship of God and further to conduct Annathanam Event scheduled on 09.08.2024 in the southern part of Sri Suyambu Solaichatha Ayyanar, Vazhai Satha Ayyanar Temple situated in SF.No.14/1, Thiruvudaiyarpatti Village, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District and consequently to direct the 4^th respondent to provide protection for Annathanam event, based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.08.2024, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶26

The learned counsel for the fifth respondent sought to place reliance https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

2/7

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.19150 of 2024

¶29

upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.18887 of 2023 dated 22.08.2023 to submit that the petitioner should be directed to receive the “Thalaikattu Vari”. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

¶30

“7. Recording the said report of the Tahsildar, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner and other persons had not prevented anyone from participating in the 'Annathanam'. However, the facts remains the rival claimants did not participate in the 'Annathanam'. Since the festival is over, the petitioner and other persons are directed to include the rival claimants in the upcoming years 'Annathanam' and receive ' jiyf;fl;L thp ”

¶31

8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is closed. No Costs.”

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

¶33

would accept the said “Thalaikattu Vari” and filed a memo stating that it will be collected from the rival claimants, i.e., the fifth respondent, from this year. The relevant portion of the memo is extracted hereunder:

¶34

“I, P. Muthukumar s/o. Periakaruppan, Hindu aged about years, residing at Thiruvudaiyarpatti Village, Thiruppathr Taluk, Sivagangai District has now filing this Memo regarding the compliance of this Hon'ble Court Order in WP(MD) No. 18887 OF 2023 dated 22.08.2023, i assure that for the upcoming "ANNATHANAM FESTIVAL" which is going to be conducted by our community people in the southside of the "Sri Suyambu Solaichatha

¶35

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

¶36

3/7

¶37

W.P.(MD).No.19150 of 2024

¶38

Ayyanar, Vazhai Sathaya Ayyanar Temple", the "Thalaikattu Vari" will be collected from the rival claimants from this year on behalf of the Annathanam Festival conducting committee.”

¶39

The relevant portion of the memo filed by the fifth respondent is extracted hereunder:

¶40

“It is submitted that the 5^th Respondent herein also given a representation to all the concerned officials on 04.07.2024 by seeking implementation of the order passed by this Hon'ble in W.P (MD) No. 18887 of 2023 dated 02.08.2023, which is passed by this Hon'ble Court for the very same issue. In the said order this Hon'ble Court categorically given a direction to the Petitioner to receive jiyf;fl;L thp for Annathanam in the upcoming years. On following the said order no appeal has been filed by the Writ Petitioner as on today. Therefore the 5^th Respondent also given a representation to all the Respondents to receiving the jiyf;fl;L thp on behalf of the Adithravidar peoples who are residing in the very same village, to that effect the 5^th Respondent is ready to pay the jiyf;fl;L thp to the Annathanam Festival which is conducted each and every year in the last Friday of Tamil Aadi Month, and also the 5^th Respondent will never claim any 1^st honour in the present festival.”

¶41

Importantly, both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that they would not make

¶42

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

¶43

4/7

¶44

W.P.(MD).No.19150 of 2024

¶45

any claim for first honour as would be evident from the memo filed by the fifth respondent and paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the Writ Petition.

¶46

Recording the same, this Writ Petition stands closed. All the parties including the petitioner and the fifth respondent are expected to co-operate for the smooth conduct of the Annathanam festival. The Joint Commissioner/first respondent herein shall nominate a Thakkar to supervise the smooth conduct of the festival, including the receipt of the 'Thalaikattu Vari'. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

08.08.2024

¶48

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm

¶49

Note: Issue order copy by 08.08.2024.

¶50

¶51

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶52

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶53

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

¶54

5/7

¶55

W.P.(MD).No.19150 of 2024

¶56

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶57

4.The Inspector of Police, Tiruppathur Town Police Station, Tiruppathur, Sivagangai District.

¶58

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

¶59

6/7

¶60

W.P.(MD).No.19150 of 2024

¶61

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶62

¶63

W.P.(MD).No.19150 of 2024

¶64

08.08.2024

¶65

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

¶66

7/7

P.Muthukumar v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Muthukumar v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faisalkhan Samoji M Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Sirajudeen Vs Tamilnadu Wakf Board Rep. by its

Senthil Kumar.a Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Chandran Vs The Joint Commissioner

Vijayakumar Vs The Transport Commissioner

G.Fasel Basha Vs The Chief Executive Officer