Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3099 (MAD)

V. Govindarajan v. Principal Secretary, Chennai

2022-09-02

C.SARAVANAN

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first and second respondents to restore the Temple/Subsidiary Diety namely Muthu Muniyappan Sannathi and aswam in the original place at Athanoor Amman Temple, Athanoor, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District in the light of observation made in W.P.No.574 of 2015 (suo motu) dated 07.06.2021.) 1.Heard both sides. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition. 2. Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first to fourth respondents. 3. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:- "to direct the first and second respondents to restore the Temple/Subsidiary Diety namely Muthu Muniyappan Sannathi and aswam in the original place at Athanoor Amman Temple, Athanoor, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District in the light of observation made in W.P.No.574 of 2015 (suo motu) dated 07.06.2021." 4. Earlier, a Writ Petition came to be filed by one P.K.Loganathan @ Ulaganathaswamy, the President of Rasipuram Nadu Vezhian Kulam Nattu Velalar Sri Pathirakali Amman (Athanur Amman) Athayee Amman Thirukoil Arakkatalai, in W.P.No.501 of 2022, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 11.07.2022, by giving liberty to the petitioner therein to file appropriate application before the Government under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the TNHR&CE Act). 5. The operative portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:- "5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 6. The only issue for consideration in the present Writ Petition is whether there is any deviation in following the agamas in the construction of the temple by the respondents or not. It cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The facts on record indicate that there was an approved plan in 2010 which was subsequently revised in 2016 and further revision was made in 2019 and the construction appears to have been completed and only painting works remains to be completed and that the Kumbhabisekham is proposed to be held on 12.09.2022. Therefore, I do not wish to interfere with the proposed Kumbhabisekham, which is proposed to be held on 12.09.2022, as construction is complete. Therefore, I do not wish to interfere with the proposed Kumbhabisekham, which is proposed to be held on 12.09.2022, as construction is complete. That apart, the earlier Writ Petition filed by one of the devotees in W.P.No.8313 of 2019 also indicated that the second respondent therein was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner therein. It was not open to the petitioner who has approached this Court by way of second Writ Petition representing a section of the society belonging to a particular community to stop the Kumbhabisekham, which is proposed to be held on 12.09.2022. Further the construction is completed even as per the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any merit to challenge to the impugned order of the respondent Commissioner. At the same time, I leave it open for the petitioner to approach the Government under Section 114 of the HR & CE Act, who in turn shall consider the case of the petitioner preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the proposed application to be filed by the petitioner under Section 114 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 and in case the issue is considered in favour the petitioner, appropriate directions may be issued based on the available records. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above liberty. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 6. It is noticed that the Kumbabhisekham of Arulmighu Athanoor Amman Temple, Athanoor, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District is proposed to be held on 12.09.2022. At this stage, now, the petitioner has woken up and has filed this writ petition to interfere with the arrangements made. 7. Considering the fact that already there is an order in W.P.No.501 of 2022, permitting the Kumbabhisekham to go on 12.09.2022, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained at this stage. 8. It is however open for the petitioner to implead himself in the proceedings which has been directed to be initiated by the petitioner in W.P.No.501 of 2022 before the Government. In case, no such revision petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.501 of 2022, the representation dated 17.05.2022 of the petitioner is directed to be considered after completion of the Kumbabhisekham of the Arulmighu Athanoor Amman Temple, Athanoor, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. 9. This Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. In case, no such revision petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.501 of 2022, the representation dated 17.05.2022 of the petitioner is directed to be considered after completion of the Kumbabhisekham of the Arulmighu Athanoor Amman Temple, Athanoor, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. 9. This Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.