Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2753 (MAD)

G. Marimuthu v. District Collector

2014-08-20

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The petitioner, claiming himself as a public interest litigant, has filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from giving permission to any person for conducting the festival for Arulmigu Vinayagar, Karuppasamy, Ayyanar and Pambulamman Temple at S. Meenakshipuram, Annaikulam Post, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District for this year. 2. The petitioner would contend that he is one of the residents of S.Meenakshipuram village. On behalf of the said villagers and on his behalf, he has filed this writ petition stating that none of the villagers has any independent right over the temple of Arulmigu Vinayagar, Karuppasamy, Ayyanar and Pambulamman Temple at S. Meenakshipuram, Annaikulam Post, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District. Further, in respect of the said temple, two groups had claimed their right and thereby a dispute arose between them and due the same, there was a law and order problem in the year 1991 and subsequently, the temple festival was also stopped and thereafter, no festival had been conducted till date. Now, the people of the said village wanted to celebrate the festival and initially a date was fixed on 01.07.2014 and the same was adjourned to 08.08.2014. In the meantime, a Peace Committee Meeting was conducted by the Tahsildar, Thiruchuli, the third respondent herein on 06.08.2014 and as one group had boycotted the meeting, no decision was arrived at. While so, a group of people proclaimed that they are going to celebrate the temple festival from 19.08.2014 to 21.08.2014, without proper permission from the statutory authorities. Therefore, the petitioner had sent a representation to the respondents for restraining any person from conducting the festival as it would cause law and order problem. Since no steps have been taken by the respondents on the representation of the petitioner, he is before this Court. 3. Heard Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.B.Pugalendhi, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Since no steps have been taken by the respondents on the representation of the petitioner, he is before this Court. 3. Heard Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.B.Pugalendhi, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. The petitioner has not made out his case for the grant of relief sought for since as stated by him, there are two groups in his village claiming their right in respect of the temple festival and a Peace Committee Meeting was also conducted by the Tahsildar, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District, the third respondent herein, which had not brought any fruitful result, therefore, if any one of the two groups want to conduct the temple festival, they can very well approach the respondents by way of representation, seeking permission to conduct the festival and the authorities concerned shall grant or reject permission considering the ground realities in the area concerned. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction, restraining the respondents from granting permission to any person for conducting the festival for Arulmigu Vinayagar, Karuppasamy, Ayyanar and Pambulamman Temple at S. Meenakshipuram, Annaikulam Post, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District. Hence, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner in this public interest litigation. 5. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed. No costs.