Judgment :- M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Claiming himself as one of the Hindu worshipers, Mr.V.Thiagarajan, President, Hindu Baktha Jana Saba State Committee, Madurai, has filed this Public Interest Litigation seeking for a Mandamus with a direction forbearing the Commissioner, HR & CE and the Executive Officer, Arulmighu Subramania Swami Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram from levying or collecting a sum of Rs.37/- per worshipper for joining the religious ceremony for Sura Samhara Festival in the Arulmigh Subramania Swami Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram in the Kandha Sashti Function. 2. According to the petitioner, the Sura Samhara Festival in Arulmigha Subramania Swami Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram is to commence on 25.10.2003 and the festival will conclude with Sura Samharam on the 7th day, i.e. on 31.10.2003. During these 7 days, the worshippers have to undergo rigorous penance to join the Lord's army to fight the evil, namely Sura Samharam. During that period, a ceremonial Holy Thread is tied around the right wrist of all the participating worshippers who offer themselves to be the contingent of Lord Muruga. The Executive Officer of the temple, Thiruparankundram was collecting a sum of Re.1/- from each worshipper. The respondents 4 and 5, the Executive Officers of both Thiruparankundram and Madurai, have now introduced a levy of Rs.37/- per worshipper to join the religious ceremony for Sura Samhara Festival. The respondents 4 and 5 claim that they have obtained permission from the Commissioner, HR & CE, the second respondent. The levy of Rs.37/- on each worshipper to observe a religious practice amounts to illegal interference with the right of the worshippers. There is no publication by the respondents calling for objection from the worshippers regarding the levy amount. Further, the poor among the Hindu public cannot afford to go on costly pilgrimages. The enhancement of the amount by imposing a levy of Rs.37/- on each devotee would be in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ for a Mandamus. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 3, viz., the Secretary to Government, HR & CE Department, the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner respectively, the temple in question is under the administration and management of the Executive Officer appointed under Section 45(1) of the HR & CE Act in the cadre of Deputy Commissioner, the 5th respondent herein. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 3, viz., the Secretary to Government, HR & CE Department, the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner respectively, the temple in question is under the administration and management of the Executive Officer appointed under Section 45(1) of the HR & CE Act in the cadre of Deputy Commissioner, the 5th respondent herein. The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai Town is functioning as the fit person of the temple and he is discharging the duties of the Trust Board. Every year, Kandha Sashti festival is being conducted for seven days during the month of Aippasi. Thousands of worshippers are participating in the religious ceremony from various districts. During these days, the temple authorities are not able to control the large crowd and are not able to regulate the worshippers. Therefore, the authorities in the interest of the temple, for regulating the worshippers and for giving convenient accommodation to the participants for these seven days, have decided to introduce new fees. Accordingly, the fit person of the temple has passed resolution on 24.10.2002 and objections from public were called for by the proceedings dated 25.10.2002 for introducing new fees. It was notified in the Notice Board of all the temples. Since no objection was received for the proposed levy from any quarter, approval was sought for. The Joint Commissioner also submitted his report recommending the introduction of new fees. Thereupon, the Secretary to Government, H.R. & C.E. Department, the first respondent herein, by the proceedings dated 27.6.2003 granted approval for the proposed levy and ordered to introduce the new fee with effect from 1.7.2003. The order has been implemented long before the filing of this petition. Even during the festival, none of the public objected to the levy imposed. The new fee was introduced and approval was granted by the competent authorities within the powers conferred under the statute as contemplated under Section 57 of the H.R. & C.E. Act after duly following the procedure. Under these circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have heard Mr.Selvaraj, the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents. 5. Under these circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have heard Mr.Selvaraj, the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents. 5. On going through the typed set of papers, it is clear that the resolution has been passed by the fit person on 24.10.2002 deciding to enhance the fees and notice in that regard was affixed in the Notice Board of the temple in question and copies of the same were sent to the temples in Madurai requiring the concerned temple authorities to invite objection from the public for the enhancement of fee. Since no objection was received, the proposal was sent to the Joint Commissioner, who in turn, recommended for approval. Ultimately, the Secretary to Government, the first respondent passed an order granting approval on 27.6.2003. As per the approval, the proposed levy was ordered to be introduced with effect from 1.7.2003. The festival was conducted and levy was imposed on the persons who participated in Kandha Sashti festival for seven days. Only after the festival was over, the writ petition has been filed during October 2003. 6. It is also seen that the circumstances and the purpose for which the amount was enhanced have been given in the typed set. The levy of Rs.2/- is for garlanding flowers to the deity, of which, Rs.1.50 would be appropriated by the Temple and the balance of Re.0.50 would be paid to the Archakar. The levy of Rs.5/- per day for 7 days, i.e. Rs.35/- is for providing proper accommodation to the devotees in the Mandapam and also for other facilities and services to them during those seven days. This levy which seems to be reasonable has been approved after observing the procedure. It is also noticed that no one is aggrieved and no one has raised any objection except the petitioner. 7. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed several petitions like this in the interest of public and as such, he has no interest or motive to file this petition. 8. On the face of it, we could see that there is no valid ground to entertain this writ petition, especially when the procedures contemplated under the Act have been followed by the authorities concerned. 8. On the face of it, we could see that there is no valid ground to entertain this writ petition, especially when the procedures contemplated under the Act have been followed by the authorities concerned. The resolution was passed and the same was brought to the notice of the public by affixing the notice in the temples in and around Madurai. When the worshippers have not raised any objection and the levy was imposed only after awaiting their objection, there is no reason for the authorities to reject the proposal and approval sent by the fit person and the Joint Commissioner. Therefore, the contention that the levy has been imposed without notice and without considering the objection, is not tenable. 9. Originally, we thought of imposing heavy costs on the petitioner. However, Mr.Selvaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner would plead for him and request this Court not to impose any costs, as the petitioner has not filed the petition with any motive. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, we leave him without imposing costs. We feel, this writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation is not to be entertained as the claim of the petitioner is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.