Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2045 (MAD)

Ramachandran v. K. Gopal

2014-07-10

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr. M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4. 2. The Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 07.07.2014, made in W.P.(MD).No.10993 of 2014. The appellant in the present Writ Appeal is the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD).No.10993 of 2014. 3. The Writ Petition had been filed by the petitioner, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus to call for the records and quash the order passed by the third respondent, dated 26.06.2014, and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition to grant police protection for conducting the temple festival, on 08.07.2014 and 09.07.2014 at Arulmighu Vani Karuppanasamy Kovil, situated at Chokkanathiruppu Village, Allinagaram, Sivagangai District, as per the representation of the petitioner, dated 19.06.2014. The learned Single Judge had disposed of the Writ Petition, without setting aside the impugned order and he had remanded the matter back to the third respondent in the Writ Petition to grant permission to the first respondent herein, who is the 'B' Party, to conduct the festival, on 13.07.2014 and 14.07.2014, if there are no other legal impediments for doing so. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge had passed the order, dated 07.07.2014, without considering the fact that a civil suit has been filed by the Writ Petitioner, in O.S.No.56 of 2014, before the Additional District Munsif Court, Manamadurai. He had submitted that the appellant has not been heard before the order had been passed by the learned Single Judge. He had further submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 07.07.2014, has the effect of granting certain civil rights to the first respondent herein, without hearing the appellant. 5. He had submitted that the appellant has not been heard before the order had been passed by the learned Single Judge. He had further submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 07.07.2014, has the effect of granting certain civil rights to the first respondent herein, without hearing the appellant. 5. Even though, it is noted that a civil suit is pending before the Additional District Munsif Court, Manamadurai, in O.S.No.56 of 2014, wherein, certain rights have been claimed by the first respondent in the present Writ Appeal, with regard to the conducting of the festival, the learned Single Judge had taken note of the various circumstances in which the Writ Petition had been filed and had passed an order, dated 07.07.2014, holding that the first respondent herein would be entitled to conduct the festival, on 13.07.2014 and 14.07.2014, if there are no legal impediments for doing so. 6. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and on a perusal of the records, we do not find any cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the said order. However, in view of the apprehensions raised by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4, we find it appropriate to direct the fourth respondent in the present Writ Appeal, namely, the Inspector of Police, Poovanthi Police Station, to take necessary steps for providing sufficient police protection for the conducting of the festival and to ensure that no law and order problem arises, while the festival is being held. 7. In such circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 07.07.2014, stands confirmed. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal is dismissed, with the above directions. However, we make it clear that the observations made by this Court, in this order, will not grant any additional right or interest to the parties concerned, for conducting the festival, in future, as such right or interest ought to be established, by the parties concerned, by way of appropriate proceedings, either before the authorities concerned or before the competent civil forum, in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.