P.Karthikeyan Vs the Joitn Commissioner

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to perform Parikaram and Purohitam at Kooduthurai, Bhavani, Erode District which is outside the compound wall of

¶16

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

¶17

1/8

¶18

W.P.No.18471 of 2024

¶19

3rd respondent A/M. Sangameswarar Thirukovil, Bhavani in compliance with the decision of this Court in Ponnudurai case 2013 (2) CWC 540 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 30.05.2024.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate (HR & CE)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the

¶24

respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to perform parikaram

¶25

and purohitam at Kooduthurai, Bhavani, Erode district which is outside the

¶26

compound wall of the third respondent, A/M. Sangameswarar Thirukovil, Bhavani in compliance with the decision of this Court reported in

¶27

Ponnudurai Vs. The Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department 1, by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.05.2024.

¶28

Upon perusing the material records of the case and hearing the

¶29

1 2013 (2) CWC 540 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2/8

¶31

W.P.No.18471 of 2024

¶32

learned Counsel for the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner is that Kooduthurai is a place where the confluence of rivers are there and people come there for various types of performing ceremonies/rites/worship etc. Though there is a temple and purohitars, attached to the temple, are there,

¶33

people are free to engage the services of persons like the petitioner also who are doing their services dehors the temple or the temple premises. The Executive Officer of the temple is preventing and interfering in such business also. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶34

It is their contention that earlier, the matter has been decided in the

¶35

judgment of this Court in the Ponnudurai 's case (cited supra ) and paragraph

¶36

No.18 of the said judgment is relied upon.

¶37

Per contra , the learned Government Advocate (HR & CE) for the

¶38

respondents, when the devotees come only to the temple and think that the

¶39

poojas are conducted on behalf of the temple, it is the duty of the Executive

¶40

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

¶41

3/8

¶42

W.P.No.18471 of 2024

¶43

Officer and the temple authorities to regulate the same. The devotees cannot

¶44

be fleeced by unauthorised persons. Therefore, agreements are entered into

¶45

after ensuring that proper rites are being conducted and the persons have adequate knowledge about the mantras and other rituals. It is only in this

¶46

context, the entire thing is regulated. As a matter of fact, a gate has been put up in the temple premises and the regulation will be made only within the

¶47

temple premises and the land belonging to the temple alone.

¶48

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and

¶49

perused the material records of the case.

¶50

There can be no two opinion that any devotee or any intending

¶51

person who intends to perform worship/any ceremony cannot be fleeced by unauthorised elements. To that extent, the temple is very much entitled to

¶52

regulate the poojas/ceremonies inside the temple and also in the temple premises and in the land that is belonging to the temple. It will be very well

¶53

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

¶54

4/8

¶55

W.P.No.18471 of 2024

¶56

open to the respondents to put up a board that in the premises only, the

¶57

purohits/other persons authorised by the temple are conducting the poojas/ceremonies. If the devotees, on their own, engaged persons like the petitioner outside the premises of the temple or outside the land belonging to

¶58

the temple comprised in T.S.Nos.16, 17, 18 and 19, then, it would be beyond the purview of the temple authorities to say that persons like the petitioner

¶59

should perform the poojas or pariharams only after getting approval of the

¶60

temple. So long as they do not claim themselves to be associated with the temple and when they do things on their own in any other land not belonging

¶61

to the temple, the temple authorities need not interfere.

¶62