Disposed

Chinna Karuppan v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Aug 2025WP Crl.(MD)/599/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two villagers sought police protection to perform hereditary ritual roles in the Kandueduthanpatti village temple festival. The court appointed a mediator; the festival was conducted peacefully with no first honour conferred, and the writ petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Petitions closed after peaceful conduct of festival mediated by court-appointed counsel; petitioner in W.P.600 given liberty to seek appropriate forum.

Chinna Karuppan Vs The District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.599 & 600 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Writ Petition Criminal (MD) Nos.599 & 600 of 2025

¶6

Chinna Karuppan

¶7

..Petitioner in W.P.Crl(MD)No.599 of 2025

¶8

Pitchan Poosari

¶9

..Petitioner in W.P.Crl(MD)No.600 of 2025

¶10

¶11

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶12

2.The Tahsildar, Ponamaravathi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶13

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ponamaravathi Division, Ponamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police, Ponamaravathi Police Station, Ponamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.

¶15

5.Subbaiah Ambalam

¶16

... Respondents1 to 5 in both petitions

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.599 & 600 of 2025

¶20

Kannan @ Subbaiha

¶21

... 6^th Respondent in W.P.CRL(MD)No.599/2025

¶22

Palanivelu

¶23

... 6^th Respondent in W.P.CRL(MD)No.600/2025

¶24

M.S.Ramachandran ... 7^th Respondent in both petitions

¶25

(R7 is impleaded as suo motu as per order dated 04.08.2025)

¶26

Prayer in W.P.CRL(MD)No.599/2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 4^th respondent to provide police protection to conduct Poojas in the capacity of Kidavetti based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.06.2025.

¶27

Prayer in W.P.CRL(MD)No.600/2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 4^th respondent to provide police protection to conduct Poojas in the capacity of Poojari based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.06.2025.

¶28

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

¶29

2/6

¶30

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.599 & 600 of 2025

¶31

In both petitions:

¶32

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Addl. Public Prosecutor (for R1 to R4) Mr.R.Senthilkumar (for R5 & R6)

¶33

Mr.Babu Rajendran (for R7)

¶34

COMMON ORDER

¶35

These petitions are filed pertaining to a temple festival in Kandueduthanpatti village.

¶36

The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.599 of 2025 claims the right to

¶37

perform the goat sacrifice during the temple festival, while the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.600 of 2025 claims the right to act as Poojari. In view of this claims, there was a clash between two groups and there were several litigations are also pending. Therefore, the request for conducting the temple festival was rejected by the respondent police. Hence, these writ petitions are filed before this court.

¶38

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

¶39

3/6

¶40

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.599 & 600 of 2025

¶41

The respondent police submitted that, in view of the ongoing

¶42

dispute between the two groups, they were not in a position to grant permission for the temple festival. Considering the rival submissions, this Court appointed Mr.K.Prabhu, learned counsel, as mediator to facilitate the conduct of the festival on behalf of the village in a peaceful manner, with participation from both groups, and to ensure that no untoward incident occurred.

¶43

The mediator has filed a report stating that the village festival

¶44

was conducted peacefully, with no untoward incident, and that no first honour was conferred upon anyone during the festival.

¶45

5.By an earlier order dated 04.08.2025, this Court had suo motu impleaded Mr.M.S.Ramachandran as a party to these proceedings based on the averments made by both sides. When the petitions were

¶46

taken up for hearing, it was reported that the said Mr.M.S.Ramachandran had passed away in the morning.

¶47

Recording the submissions of the mediator, these writ petitions are closed, with liberty to the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.600 of 2025 to workout his remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶48

13.08.2025

¶49

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn

¶50

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

¶51

4/6

¶52

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.599 & 600 of 2025

¶53

¶54

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶55

2.The Tahsildar, Ponamaravathi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶56

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ponamaravathi Division, Ponamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.

¶57

4.The Inspector of Police, Ponamaravathi Police Station, Ponamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.

¶58

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

¶59

5/6

¶60

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.599 & 600 of 2025

¶61

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶62

skn

¶63

Writ Petition Criminal (MD) Nos.599 & 600 of 2025

¶64

13.08.2025

¶65

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

¶66

6/6

Chinna Karuppan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinna Karuppan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Maria Lenorin Diana Vs The Superintendent of Police

Chellakannu Vs The District Collector

Periyasamy Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Murugan Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Priyadharshini Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Kattar @ Mariya John Carter Vs The State of Tamilnadu