Judgment :- The petitioner claims to be the Tamil Nadu Murga Baktha Peravai, rep.by its General Secretary and seeking to challenge the order dated 10.04.2008 passed by the Executive Officer cum Joint Commissioner, Thiruchendur in refusing to permit the petitioner association to conduct special poojas on 13.04.2008 and to celebrate the Tamil New Year Day and also to distribute Sakarai Pongal (Sweetened Cooked Rice) to the devotees. It was also informed that the temple should not put up a notice board kept outside that the First day of Tamil Month Chithirai is the Tamil New Year Day. 2. Nowhere in the affidavit the petitioner had stated that it was a registered body. They have not enclosed copy of the Registration Certificate. A writ petition at the instance of an un-registered body is not maintainable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. 3. However, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since the deponent to the affidavit can file a writ petition in his individual capacity, the prayer made in the writ petition can be confined to the said individual. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, on 13.03.2008 , they gave a requisition to have a special worship in Arulmighu Siva Kozhundeeswarar Temple at Thiruchendur which is a sub-temple of the of the Thiruchendur Arulmighu Subramaniya Swami Temple. The petitioner was informed by the Joint Commissioner that the request of the petitioner association cannot be considered as the State Government had not announced 13th April ( first day of Tamil Month of Chithirai)as the "Tamil New Year Day" and also no notice board should be kept in the temple showing that the first day of Chithirai is the beginning of the Tamil New Year Day. 5. Notwithstanding the said refusal, it is seen that the letter sent by the Maniyam of the Arulmighu Siva Kozhundeeswarar Temple, Thiruchendur to the 4th respondent that on 13.04.2008, on behalf of the petitioner Association, "Abishekam" was performed during the "Paditarakalam" and the members of the association distributed Sarkkarai Pongal to the devotees at their expense. Normally, the matter should have rested therein. 6. However, the petitioner had chosen to challenge the action of the 4th respondent in this writ petition and had raised the following grounds:- "a). Normally, the matter should have rested therein. 6. However, the petitioner had chosen to challenge the action of the 4th respondent in this writ petition and had raised the following grounds:- "a). The refusal to allow special worship on the first day of Chithirai the Tamil New Year according to the faith of the devotee is a grave infringement of the petitioners fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. b) The 4th respondent has also omitted to take note of the statutory mandate set out an Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959. c) The performance of special worship on the first of Tamil month of Chithirai is an essential religious practice and integral profession and practice of Hindu religion." 7. It is seen from the communication sent by the third respondent dated 14.08.2008 that in the previous years in order to celebrate first day of Chithirai Tamil Month the temple was supplying free electricity and mike set for the members of the petitioner association for singing hymns from Devaram and Thiruvasakam. The temple also prepared 5 Kilos of prepared Sakkarai Pongal and thereafter, to distribute it to the devotees on the occasion. However, after the receipt of the Government order in G.O.No,70 P&AR Department dated 09.04.2008 wherein, it has been declared the first day Tamil Month of Thai (14th January) will be the beginning of Tamil New Year, it was decided not to conduct any special poojas describing it as the "Tamil New Year Day". The offer of free electricity and mike set as well the free Prasadham was not by an any Endowment created by any devotee but the temple was doing it on its own. Therefore, the first day of Chithirai when it was no longer the official Tamil New Year Day, such free distribution was stopped. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated in para:2, it is averred as follows:- "2...This respondent in view of the G.O.above cited informed the petitioner that five kilos rice sweet pongal and free usage of mike set will not be provided for the cause mentioning it as Tamil New Year day, as it involved the temple expenditure, as for a day not recognized by the Government as Tamil New Year day. But, worshippers of their own accord doing poojas in the temple and doing vazhipadu or worshping the temple was not prevented. In fact on 13.04.2008, the petitioner along with his group people did worship in the temple. The Devasthanam has not provided them with five kilos rice and sweet pongal and usage of free mike set are the reasons set forth in their application. That is Tamil new Year Day sought to be celebrated was not inconsonance with the Government order above said." 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a violation of Article 26 of the Constitution read with Section 107 of the Hindu Religious Endowment Act in the temple stopping the practice of offering special worship on the first day the Tamil month of Chithirai. His submission is that the new year called as Puthaandu for Tamil, "Vishu" for Malayalees, "Baisakai" for Punjabis and "Navavarsh" for Bengalis. Therefore, it was on 13th April, the Tamilis believe that the Lord Brahma had created the world. He also submitted that the Tamil Hindu Calendar with a cycle of 60 years follows Nirayana Vernal Equinox and the practice of 60 years circle is a ancient practice in traditional calendars in India. He also submitted that the attempt of the State to bring in change in the calendar and shifting the New Year Day as per the Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 2008 and the consequential G.O.Ms.NO.70 PA&RD, Department dated 09.04.2005 cannot have any bearing on the religious observances in a temple. 10. The celebration of the first day of Tamil month of Chithirai as the beginning of the Tamil New Year is for the devotees to decided and therefore, it not for the authorities to decline special poojas on that day. He also submitted that the constitution had guaranteed rituals and observance of ceremonies and more so, worship are integral parts of a religious faith. The legislature cannot prevent it by a legislative fiat. 11. Though the petitioner had raised such issues, there is no iota of evidence to show that such a custom had been recognised in the temple in question. The legislature cannot prevent it by a legislative fiat. 11. Though the petitioner had raised such issues, there is no iota of evidence to show that such a custom had been recognised in the temple in question. On the contrary, the affidavit filed by the petitioner clearly shows that there was no such custom existed in the 4th respondent temple and that they have allowed the petitioner association for some years to have special poojas on the first day of Tamil Month of Chithirai and also extended certain facilities to them. Even now, there is no bar for them to offer special poojas on any day in the year, but it should at their own expense. 12. In order to establish, a custom or an usage or any temple honours, the petitioner will have to move the machinery provided under the Act in the form of a dispute under Section 63(C) of the HR&CE ACT , 1959 which reads as follows:- "63.[Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] to decide certain disputes and matters: Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, [the Joint commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be] shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters;- (a) to (d) Omitted (e) Whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter; 13. Therefore, in the absence of the petitioner seeking a declaration from the notified authorities, this Court cannot, by mere pleadings in the form of affidavits determine any such custom or usage or perquisites on the part of the petitioners association or its members so as to have it protected the terms of Section 107 of the HR&CE Act. The petitioners right to offer pooja on any day of the year is not prevented. But what is sought to be done is the shifting of the new year from the Tamil month of Chithirai to the month of Thai and it is sought to be indirectly questioned in this writ petition. 14. The petitioners right to offer pooja on any day of the year is not prevented. But what is sought to be done is the shifting of the new year from the Tamil month of Chithirai to the month of Thai and it is sought to be indirectly questioned in this writ petition. 14. The Supreme Court in its decision in N. Aditiyan vs Travancore Davasthnam and others reported in 2002 (8) SCC 106 , expressed the legal position, that the protection under Articles 25 and 26 extend a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship, which are integral parts of religion. As to what really constitutes an essential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided by the Court with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion or practices regarded as parts of religion. The Supreme Court found that there was no proper plea or sufficient proof also of any specific custom or usage specially created by the Founder of the Temple or those, who have the exclusive right to administer the religious and secular affairs of the Temple, leave alone the legality, propriety and validity of the same in the changed legal position brought about by the Constitution. 15. The petitioner is trying to mix up religion with language. Though he correctly mentioned about new year being celebrated by different linguistic groups such as Malayalees, Punjabis and Bengalis, there is no direct relationship between the celebration of a new year and the religions of the respective linguistic groups. It is misnomer for the petitioner to assert that the Tamil New Year which falls on the first Chithirai as the Tamil Hindu New Year. It is an unfortunate attempt to mix up religion with language. It should be proudly noted that the Tamilians all over the world irrespective of their religious affinity such as Hindus, Muslims and Christians and including non-believers celebrate the Tamil New year without any discrimination or religious fervour. 16. Likewise, the Punjabis whether Sikhs or Hindus celebrate Baisaki day as the new year. The only exception is the Jains celebrate the Diwali as the beginning of their new year which is also associated with certain religious rituals. 16. Likewise, the Punjabis whether Sikhs or Hindus celebrate Baisaki day as the new year. The only exception is the Jains celebrate the Diwali as the beginning of their new year which is also associated with certain religious rituals. It is so happened since the new year day is the paid holiday whether it is a Charistian Calendar or Tamil Calendar or Malayalem Calendar (in four districts in Tamil Nadu it is a local holiday) people throng to the temple to offer worship, so that the new year can bring them peace and prosperity. In fact in a lighter vein, this Court told the counsel for the petitioner that his clients can offer special poojas on the first day of Chithirai at their costs except that it may not be a paid holiday for them any more. 16. Even to think of the calendars as part of a religion, it should be noted that the majority people in the Indian Sub-continent go their religious rituals or festivals either by Hindus or Muslims were following only the lunar calendar. All the festivals and rituals are planned according to the sighting of the moon. Those calendars never had a cycle of 365 days for a long time. Only after the entry of the Westerners and the establishment of a Colonial Government in the major portion of the Indian Sub-continent. The calendar based upon the Christian Era was introduced. The first day of January of each year was stated to be officially celebrated as the "New Year". This led to calculating the number of days in a year by each linguistic groups to adjust their linguistic calendars having 365 days cycle. Even some months in the Tamil calendar were made to have 32 to 33 days in making such adjustments. But,at the same time, they fixed the dates of festivals and rituals based upon the position and sighting of Moon. 17. Even today, there is a great debate regarding the origin of 60 year cycle adopted by the Tamil calendar as to how it contains Sanskrit names for each year. This had never been explained by any Scholars sofar. Therefore, the debate on the year cycle is inconclusive. In any event, the present land in which Tamils are living was overrun many times by different rulers professing different faiths. This had never been explained by any Scholars sofar. Therefore, the debate on the year cycle is inconclusive. In any event, the present land in which Tamils are living was overrun many times by different rulers professing different faiths. Depending upon the desire or decree by the rulers, the calculation years by Era had changed from time to time. The land of Tamils Nadu had seen adoption of different Eras: (i) Salivakhana Era (ii) Hijiri Era (iii) Christian Era (iv) Sakha Era (in the erst while Travancore Regions) 18. After the advent of the Constitution, the present Government had adopted the Thiruvallur Era as the basis its Official Calendar and thus, the present year in the Tamil Calendar is 2039th years. First time, the Tamil Calendar has also been given a Era to proclaim proudly an Era for them. Therefore, it is not something new for the Government to change its Calendar and of adopt a particular calendar. So long as the State legislature enacts legislation which is within its constitutional power, the attempt to question it on the basis of an unknown religious foundation cannot be accepted. Perhaps, even the Government may appoint an expert committee to suggest and make changes in the cycle of 60 years Tamil Calendar and bring a change over from the Sanskrit names to have Tamil names. When the State has power introduce the Tamil Language as an Official Language for the State, it is also axiomatic that the State can adopt a Tamil Calendar as the basis of its working. There is no illegality or unconstitutionality by the State in introducing a change for the beginning of a new year in the Tamil Calendar by the Tamil Nadu Act 2/2008. 19. The attempt by the petitioner to make it as if the first day of the Tamil Month of Chithirai and right to offer special worship as an essential religious practice and integral profession and practice of Hindu Religion is an attempt to bring a religious flavor to the issue, which is most unfortunate. 20. The impugned notice as justified by the counter affidavit does not prevent the religious practice of the petitioner association or its members to conduct poojas. As such, there is no violation either under Section 107 of the HR&CE Act or of Article 26 of the Constitution. 21. 20. The impugned notice as justified by the counter affidavit does not prevent the religious practice of the petitioner association or its members to conduct poojas. As such, there is no violation either under Section 107 of the HR&CE Act or of Article 26 of the Constitution. 21. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits and accordingly will stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to order costs.