Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1708 (MAD)

R. Venkatachalam v. District Collector

2012-04-03

K.CHANDRU

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to consider representation dated 22.3.2012 by the respondents starting from District Collector to the Inspector of Police, Sankagiri so as to permit the petitioner, who belonged to Nadar community along with 7th respondent, who belonged to Kongu Vellar community and other communities people to participate and perform the festival of Sri Thanga Marriamman Thirukkoyil, Nattuvampalayam, Sangagiri R.S.Sangagiri Taluk, Salem District to be held on 04.04.2012 or any other subsequent dates. 2. A copy of the representation dated 22.3.2012 is enclosed in page Nos.13 and 14 of the typed set. It was addressed by the petitioner in his individual capacity as well as the public of Nattuvampalayam village and addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangagiri. In the representation, it was stated that the temple is situated in poramboke land and it is belonged to all the public of the said village whereas Kongu Vellelar Gounders in that place, who were managing temple, are excluding other community people in participating. In earlier occasions, fee was levied from all community people for conducting temple festival, but suddenly the said privilege was stopped. Even though more than a crore of rupees was collected for conducting kumbabhishekam in the temple, there is no proper accounting of the said amount. Therefore the petitioner wanted enquiry by Revenue Divisional Officer in respect of misappropriation of the funds collected through Hundial and also to conduct in future the temple festival in a peaceful manner. 3. The petitioner wanted Revenue Divisional Officer to convene a peace committee meeting of all the people and settle the issue. They have also given details of the funds collected by the temple in the previous occasion. A copy of representation has been marked to the District Collector, Tahsildar and Superintendent of Police. A press news appeared in Dinakaran Daily newspaper is also enclosed to show that it has created local problem and people belonging to the village went to Revenue Divisional Officer's office seeking his intervention. It is seen from the records that the temple festival was conducted starting from 27.1.2012 till 29.1.2012 and in the invitation, which is enclosed it was claimed that the temple belonged to Kongu Vellelar community. 4. It is seen from the records that the temple festival was conducted starting from 27.1.2012 till 29.1.2012 and in the invitation, which is enclosed it was claimed that the temple belonged to Kongu Vellelar community. 4. What ever may be the claim of the 7th respondent, who is Oorgoundan of the village, the present prayer seeking for intervention of Revenue Divisional Officer in such matter cannot be countenanced by this Court. If it is a case of any law and order, wherein instantaneous action can be initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is Executive Magistrate in the said place. Now that the temple festival is over as early as 29.1.2012 and the situation, which could have made Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise is Magisterial power, does not arise. Even otherwise while exercising such magisterial power, the authorities can only maintain status quo for the purpose of preserving law and order in the area, but by exercise of such power he cannot create any right between the parties. Ultimately whether a particular faction wants to have the temple honour is essentially a question which shall be considered by the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act in the light of the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Section 63 of the said Act deals with the powers of the authorities under the Act to decide whether any customary privilege existed in favour of any individual or any group in relation to a temple festival. Section 108 of the Act also bars in respect of administration or management of a religious institution. Therefore, a customary right will have to be necessary pleaded only before the authorities under the Act and as against the order of the District Revenue authority, under Section 63, the Act, it also provides for appeal and a further suit in case aggrieved party is not satisfied with the order passed by the Department. The Act do not contemplate any other procedure in the matter of determination of the religious rights of individuals or groups. Therefore, the petitioner asking the 2nd respondent to decide by convening a peace committee meeting is not a procedure contemplated under the Act and secondly the 2nd respondent is not an authority to decide such specialised matters for which exclusive power has been conferred only with the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the petitioner asking the 2nd respondent to decide by convening a peace committee meeting is not a procedure contemplated under the Act and secondly the 2nd respondent is not an authority to decide such specialised matters for which exclusive power has been conferred only with the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is well advised to move the authorities under the Act for getting appropriate relief and not to seek short-cut method as in the present case. The writ petition is misconceived and bereft of any merit and hence the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.