Judgment :- M. Sathyanarayanan, J The Writ Petition is filed in public interest challenging the order dated 04.08.2007 passed by the third respondent wherein the fifth respondent had indicated that to maintain law and order problem in the Kandampatti village, the Revenue Divisional Officer/Executive Magistrate, ordered the closure of the Draupadi Amman Temple and sealed the same, thereby rejecting the request to take procession. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition, it has been averred that the Draupadi Amman Temple at Kandampatti village has been maintained and renovated with donations and contributions of all communities of Kandampatti village and Kumbabishekam was also performed in the year 1999 with the participation of all communities. .3. In the recent past, due to simmering discord and differences between two communities, attempts were made to prevent people belong to Scheduled Caste from offering worship at the temple and in that regard, there was a peace committee meeting held on 28.05.2007. In the said meeting, it was agreed that in future, all persons irrespective of the caste and religion would be permitted to enter temple and offer prayers. Even after the said decision, attempts were made to prevent the people belong to Scheduled Caste from entering into the temple. The suit in O.S.No.725 of 2007 was also filed by the people belonged to dominant community preventing the people belong to Scheduled Caste from entering into the temple. There was one more peace committee meeting on 31.07.2007 and thereafter, the above order came to be passed wherein the temple was ordered to be closed. It is the case of the petitioner that denying permission to the political party in which the petitioner is a General Secretary, to protest against the denial of temple entry to people belong to Scheduled Caste and the inaction of the authorities in ensuring equal access to all worshippers at the Kandampatti Draupadi Amman Temple, is violative of Articles 14, 17, 19(1)(a) and 21 read with Articles 38, 46 and 51A of the Constitution of India. 4. The third respondent namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Salem, has filed a counter affidavit stating that after the performance of Kumbabishekam in the year 1999, the people belong to Scheduled Caste community, wanted the right of entry into the temple to offer prayer which led to communal unrest in that area. 4. The third respondent namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Salem, has filed a counter affidavit stating that after the performance of Kumbabishekam in the year 1999, the people belong to Scheduled Caste community, wanted the right of entry into the temple to offer prayer which led to communal unrest in that area. As regards the permission sought by the petitioner to take out the procession to protest against the prevention of entry to people belong to Scheduled Caste community, to offer worship in the said temple, the respondent has submitted that the procession route is through the heart of the city and since the tension prevailed between the said communities and in order to maintain communal harmony and law and order, the request to take out procession was rejected. 5. Several peace committee meetings were held wherein all the community people and Revenue Officials are participated and ultimately, it was decided to close the temple till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.725 of 2007 filed by the people belonged to other community pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem. .6. The third respondent, curiously in paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit has averred that the Draupadi Amman Temple has been constructed by Vanniar Community People and have been in existence for over a period of 300 years and the people belong to Vanniar Community alone are offering the worship. It is also submitted by the third respondent that the District Secretary of the Petitioners party had also participated in the peace committee meeting wherein it has been decided to close the temple and therefore, the petitioner has no grievance regarding the closure of the temple. 7. The sixth respondent namely, the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Salem, has filed his report. In the report, it has been stated that the Draudpadi Amman Temple was brought under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, even prior to the year 1979 and three non-hereditary trustees including a trustee belonging to the Scheduled Caste were appointed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Salem in Rc.2314/79/A1 dated 11.07.1979. 8. 8. One of the persons belong to other community, had filed a revision in R.P.No.7 of 1981 under Section 21 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department challenging the said appointment and they also filed an application in O.A.No.3 of 1980 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department under Section 63(b) of the Act claiming hereditary trusteeship to the said temple and it was ordered on 01.02.1980. 9. The revision in R.P.No.7 of 1981 was allowed and the order of Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, appointing non-hereditary trustees was set aside. Thereafter, the Official Fit Persons and nonhereditary trustees were appointed on various occasions. 10. The seventh respondent herein was also appointed as non-hereditary trustee on 06.09.1993 and he was subsequently elected as Chairman, Board of Trustees on 18.03.1993. After the expiry of the period on 26.04.2006, the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Vennankodi Muniappan Temple, Salem was appointed as Fit Person to the said temple on 24.07.2006. But, the trustees have not handed over the charges of the temple so far to the newly appointed Fit Person. .11. It is further stated in the said report of the sixth respondent that all Hindus irrespective of the castes or sects shall be entitled to offer worship in Arulmighu Draupadi Amman Temple at Kandampatti village and the order to that effect was also issued by the second respondent vide proceedings in Rc.42/07 A2 dated 28.05.2007. In the peace committee meeting held on 03.08.2007, it was decided to announce the decision later, but during that day, the District Revenue Officer, Salem informed the sixth respondent that the temple will be sealed on 04.08.2007 and accordingly, it was sealed and reported to the sixth respondent. 12. As regards the allegations that the people belong to the Scheduled Caste community are prevented from entering into the temple for the purpose of worship, the sixth respondent has stated that no petitions in this regard were submitted to the Department about the prevention of the Scheduled Caste people from offering worship. There was law and order problem and hence, the temple was sealed. The sixth respondent has specifically stated that all Hindus irrespective of caste or sect shall be entitled to offer worship in Arulmighu Draupadi Amman Temple at Kandampatti village and the Department is not against the worship by any caste of Hindus. 13. There was law and order problem and hence, the temple was sealed. The sixth respondent has specifically stated that all Hindus irrespective of caste or sect shall be entitled to offer worship in Arulmighu Draupadi Amman Temple at Kandampatti village and the Department is not against the worship by any caste of Hindus. 13. The seventh respondent who was subsequently ordered to be impleaded, belong to other caste and he has filed a counter stating that Arulmighu Draupadi Amman Temple is not a public temple and it was founded by Vanniar Community people over 400 years ago. All the expenses connected with the temple are being spent by the people belong to Vanniar Community and Kumbabishekan was also performed by them. Since the political party in which the petitioner belongs, wants to make the trouble in the administration of the temple by claiming right over the temple in the name of worship, he was constrained to file the suit in O.S.No.719 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem for declaration that the suit temple is the denomination temple of the Vanniar Community of Kandampatti village and the suit is still pending. The community in which the seventh respondent belongs, also filed two other suits in O.S.Nos.725 of 2007 and 1183 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem and in the suit O.S.No.1183 of 2007, there was an interim order inuring in their favour. Unless the proceedings reached finality in the above suits, the petitioner cannot have any remedy. Therefore, the seventh respondent for the reasons stated in his counter, has prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 14. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, this Court suggested for convening of a peace committee meeting and accordingly, the meeting was convened on 24.06.2008. The District Collector, vide letter in Roc.No.25255/2007/C2 dated 24.06.2008, has informed the Additional Government Pleader, High Court, Madras, stating that the peace committee meeting was convened on 24.06.2008 in the presence of the Honourable Minister for Agriculture and the following decisions have been taken with the consent of both sides: "1. Vanniars alone may enter in the Karppagraha and do Pooja. 2. The festivals may be fixed by them. 3. Adi dravidars should not interfere in the temple administration. 4. Vanniars alone may enter in the Karppagraha and do Pooja. 2. The festivals may be fixed by them. 3. Adi dravidars should not interfere in the temple administration. 4. The temple may be opened for worship to all the public like vanniar, Adi Dravidar and Arunthathiar. 5. Worship Prasathams may be distributed to Adi Dravidatrs and Arunthathiars. 6. Adi dravidars should not claim any right over the temple. 7. Adi dravidars should not claim any fresh rights. 8. The festivals may be celebrated by the vanniars in usual manner. 9. Vanniar society people should permit the Adi Dravidar and Arunthathiar to worship in the temple. 10. The Pooja may be done by the vanniars in the Karppagraha. 11. During festival seasons Adi Dravidars and Arunthathiar should be permitted to worship. 12. The demand of Vanniars regarding denomination temple negotiation will be made with the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and settled. 13. The details of the peace talk will be informed to the Honourable High Court and got permission to open the temple." 115. It is further stated in the said letter by the District Collector of the Salem District that both sides did not accept the above said event. 116. Mr. T. Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the Draupadi Amman Temple has been declared as a public temple, even prior to 1979, the people belong to other community, has no right whatsoever to prevent the people belong to Scheduled Caste community from entering into the temple and offering the worship. As regards the permission sought by the petitioner to take out the procession, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since their request to lift the seal of the temple failed, the petitioner was left with no other option except to seek permission to the fifth respondent to take out a procession for the purpose of venting their grievances and mere taking out a procession, in any manner will not create a law and order problem and even if there is any law and order problem, the respondents 3 and 5 are having adequate police force to prevent law and order problem. 117. 117. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, notwithstanding any law, custom or usage to the contrary, every Hindu irrespective of the caste or sect to which he belongs, shall be entitled to enter any Hindu temple and offer worship therein in the same manner and to the same extent as Hindus in general or any section of Hindus and no Hindu shall, by reason only of such entry or worship whether before or after the commencement of this Act, be deemed to have committed any actionable wrong or offence or be sued or prosecuted therefor. 118. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also invited the attention to the Rules under the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, wherein Rule 9 stipulates that no Executive authority of a temple shall be entitled to introduce innovations concerning the time, place or mode of worship in the temple which might prejudicially affect the rights and facilities which worshippers had generally exercised in respect of those matters before the passing of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947.. 119. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the people belong to the Scheduled Caste community were denied the rights including their right of entry to the temple and offer worship and that is why, the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, came to be passed and even after nearly 41 years, after the passing of the said Act, it is unfortunate that the people belong to the Scheduled Caste community are prevented from entering into the said temple and offer their worship. 120. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. But, the inaction of the second respondent in sealing the public temple on the ground that taking out the procession and offering worship may create law and order problem, per se, in violation of the Constitutional right and it is also liable to be condemned. 121. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also traces out the history before the passing of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947. 20.22. 121. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also traces out the history before the passing of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947. 20.22. It is further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is seeking permission to take out procession only to vent his grievance that the people belong to his community are discriminated and prevented from offering worship and since the respondents 3 and 5 are having enough and adequate force to deal with the law and order problem, permission should be granted to take out the procession. 223. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 5, has submitted that the because of apprehension of law and order problem only, the decision was taken to close down the temple. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that in the event of permission being granted to take out the procession, it has to pass through arterial routes and there is genuine apprehension of law and order problem which may ultimately lead to communal clash and also the likelihood of loss of lives. .24. The learned Special Government Pleader, (H.R & C.E), appearing for the respondents 1 and 6, has contended that the Draupadi Amman Temple being a public temple, every Hindu irrespective of his case or creed or sect is allowed to offer worship and since the second respondent felt that there is likelihood of law and order problem, has ordered the closure of the temple. It is further submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader (H.R.& C.E), that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, will take utmost efforts to reopen the temple and the respondents 3 and 5 may be directed to offer adequate police protection to deal with any eventualities. 225. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the respective sides and also perused the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, counter affidavits and the report submitted by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board. 226. It is an admitted fact that the Draupadi Amman Temple was brought under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, even prior to the year 1979 and originally three non-hereditary trustees were appointed and the said order was quashed. 226. It is an admitted fact that the Draupadi Amman Temple was brought under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, even prior to the year 1979 and originally three non-hereditary trustees were appointed and the said order was quashed. Thereafter, the trustees were appointed including the seventh respondent and their term expired on 26.04.2006 and the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Vennankodi Muniappan Temple, Salem, was appointed as a Fit Person to administer the affairs of the temple by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department on 24.07.2006. 227. Even though the Fit Person was appointed to take the charge of the administration of the temple, the trustees have not handed over the charge of the temple to the newly appointed Fit Person. It is unfortunate that the sixth respondent had taken such a stand in his report-dated 212. 2007. If the trustees have not handed over the charge, provisions are available in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, to take the charge of the administration of the temple. However, the sixth respondent has not taken any steps. No explanation is forthcoming from the sixth respondent as to why no steps have been taken to take charge of the management of the temple. .28. It is the stand of the sixth respondent that all Hindus irrespective of the caste and sect including the people belong to Scheduled Caste are entitled to enter and worship in the Draupadi Amman Temple of Kandampatti village. In the event of the said stand being taken by the sixth respondent, he should have prevailed upon the second respondent not to close the temple and if the sixth respondent apprehended any law and order problem, he should have intimated the fact to the fifth respondent and the third respondent, who are having adequate police force to deal with any eventualities. But, unfortunately, the sixth respondent has not done so. The first respondent who is the Departmental Head, also became a silent spectator to the happenings wherein the people belong to the Scheduled Caste are prevented from entering into Draupadi Amman Temple and offer their worship. 229. But, unfortunately, the sixth respondent has not done so. The first respondent who is the Departmental Head, also became a silent spectator to the happenings wherein the people belong to the Scheduled Caste are prevented from entering into Draupadi Amman Temple and offer their worship. 229. The counter affidavit of the third respondent namely the Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Law and Order), Salem, would reveal that the Draupadi Amman Temple has been constructed by the Vanniar Community people and have been existing over a period of 300 years and the worship has been done by the said community people alone. It also remains a mystery as to how the third respondent has taken such a stand in the absence of any material placed before him. The Controlling Department namely, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, has taken quite contra stand and they said that Draupadi Amman Temple was taken over by the Department even prior to 1979 and as on date, it is a public temple wherein irrespective of the caste, creed or sect, any Hindu can offer their worship. 230. We are at a loss to understand as to how the third respondent has taken such a stand in his counter. .31. As regards the report sent by the District Collector, Salem District, We find that the decision taken in the peace committee meeting held on 26.04.2008 ended in favour of the dominant caste. In view of the stand taken by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, that the Draupadi Amman Temple is a public temple and the suits filed by the seventh respondent and their community people are yet to reach any finality with regard to the declaration of their right to the temple and that as per the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, a right has been conferred upon all Hindus to enter into the said temple and offer worship, the order passed by the second respondent in ordering the closure of the temple on the face of it, is unsustainable. Regarding the prayer sought by the petitioner to take out the procession to vent their grievances regarding the denial of permission to the people belong to Scheduled Caste Community to offer worship at the Draupadi Amman Temple, in view of the foregoing reasons that the order passed by the second respondent in closing down the said temple, is unsustainable, there is no need for them to take out a procession. The third respondent has also taken a stand that in the event of procession allowed to be taken, it has to pass through arterial routes and also through the areas in which the people belong to other community are dominant and definitely there will be law and order problem, We are not inclined to grant the request made by the petitioner to take out a procession, for the present. 232. For the above said reasons, We direct the second respondent to reopen the said Draupadi Amman Temple within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order from the Registry and We further direct the respondents 1 to 6 to ensure adequate protection to the people belong to the Scheduled Caste Community to enter the said temple and offer worship. 233. In the event of the writ petitioner filing appropriate application before the fifth respondent for taking out the procession, the fifth respondent can deal with the same in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 234. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. But, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.