ORDER : T. RAJA, J. Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the notification dated Nil passed by the first respondent in respect of performing "Maha-kumbhabishegam" in Shri Arulmigu Thandayudhapani Swami Temple, Palani and quash the same and consequently, directing all the respondents to change the date of Maha-kumbabishegam after "Thaipoosa Thiruvizha" which is on 06/02/2023. This writ petition has been filed challenging the notification issued by Arulmighu Thandayudhapani Swami Temple, Palani, announcing the dates for yagna and Kumbabishegam. 2. According to the petitioner, Kumbabishegam of a temple has to be done only as per the Agama Rules. But, the respondent Department is planning to conduct Kumbabishegam of Shri Arulmigu Thandayudhapani Swami Temple, Palani, on 27.01.2023, against the Hindu Dharma, by not following the Agama Rules. As per Agama Rules, after Kumbabishegam, mandala pooja has to be conducted for 48 days continuously. During the mandala pooja, no other festival can be celebrated as it would interfere with the Kumbabishegam. 3. The festival of Thaipoosam falls on 05.02.2023. If it is not celebrated in view of mandala pooja and Kumbabishegam, lakh of devotees coming on pilgrimage to Palani Temple would be disappointed and at the same time, if it is celebrated, mandala pooja would be interrupted. In order to avoid it, the date of Kumbabishegam has to be changed. Hence, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 4. The petitioner, appearing in person, contended that during the mandala pooja after Kumbabishegam, celebrating Thaipoosam festival, would amount to violation of fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and also Agama Rules. Therefore, the notification announcing the date of Kumbabishegam is liable to be quashed. 5. The petitioner contended that celebration of Thaipoosam festival in the middle of mandala pooja, after Kumbabishegam, is in violation of Agama Rules. He has not produced any document or written opinion from any expert or religious leader, in support of his claim, though he stated that he got clarification from Erode Adheena Thalamai Shivachariyar Shri Balaji Shivam to that effect. 6. The petitioner, in support of his contention, relied on Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under : "25. 6. The petitioner, in support of his contention, relied on Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under : "25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion: (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-- (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation I: The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II: In sub clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly." 7. A reading of the above would make it clear that the right to freedom of practice and propagation of religion is no doubt guaranteed by the Constitution of India to all persons. However, it is subject to public order, morality and health, therefore, when all citizens shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, it is not known as to how the petitioner can complain that the rights guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India are being violated by performing the Kumbabishegam of Arulmigu Thandayudhapani Swami Temple, Palani and the Thaipoosam festival during the mandala pooja. The petitioner has not substantiated his claim with any fact or law. 8. Further, given the facts and circumstances of the case, it is better to take note of the ancient fact that when Saints Thirugnanasambandar and Thirunavukkarasar were professing and propagating Saivam in Thirumaraikadu during 7th century, Mangayarkkarasi, Queen of Nindraseer Nedumaran (Koon Pandiyan) sent one of her Ministers Kulachiraiyar to invite Thirugnanasambandar to Madurai to save Saivam from getting wiped out from Pandiyan Kingdom. At the behest of the Queen, when Minister Kulachiraiyar came to Thirumaraikadu and invited Thirugnanasambandar to come to Madurai and save Saivam from the clutches of Samanars and Koon Pandiyan from the disease, Saint Thirunavukkarasar advised Saint Thirugnanasambandar not to undertake the journey to Madurai on any inauspicious day, Saint Thirugnanasambandar, while replying to Thirunavukkarasar, told him that for the devotees of Lord Siva, there is no auspicious or inauspicious day and all the days 24/7 are auspicious time only. Saying so, He recited the following pathigam : 9. The meaning of the above recital shows that the nine planets inclusive of Rahu and Kethu (two snakes) would only protect the devotees of Lord Siva on all the days 24/7, instead of harming them, and therefore, pilgrimage to be undertaken by such a blessed devotee of Lord Shiva at any time will not create any obstacle. When this being the clear and loud message from the Saint Thirugnanasambandar stressing that there is no inauspicious time, performing the Kumbabishegam of Arulmigu Thandayudhapani Swami Temple, Palani and the Thaipoosam festival during the mandala pooja cannot at all be considered as inauspicious. 10. This apart, it is also trite law that the Court cannot ordinarily interfere with the day-to-day rituals of the temple. The procedure of conducting rituals is in the exclusive domain of Devasthanam and therefore, it cannot be a matter of adjudication by any Court and these issues have to be looked into by the pandits or the scholars or the advisors in accordance with the temple customs or the established practice and procedure. These are not the issues for which the Court possesses expertise. (See the judgment of Apex Court in SLP(C) No.6554 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021 - Srivari Daadaa v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams). 11. These are not the issues for which the Court possesses expertise. (See the judgment of Apex Court in SLP(C) No.6554 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021 - Srivari Daadaa v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams). 11. Moreover, whether any ritual or sewa is being performed in a prescribed way or whether there is any deviation from established practice would raise disputed questions of fact, cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because the procedure of conducting rituals is in the exclusive domain of the Devasthanam and the same cannot be a matter of adjudication by any Court unless it affects secular or civil rights of others and this issue ought to be looked into only by the pandits or the scholars or the advisors in accordance with the temple customs or the established practice and procedure. While dealing with a similar issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No.6554 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021 - Srivari Daadaa v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams has held that these are all the issues to be looked into by the pandits or the scholars or the advisors in accordance with the temple customs or the established practice and procedure. The Apex Court further held that if the Sevas, Utsavams and Darshanams in the temple are not being done according to the set principles, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the civil Court or the competent authority and prove his claims with evidence. In the case on hand, the petitioner, without doing so, cannot come to the writ Court. 12. For all the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition challenging the notification issued by the respondent Department announcing the dates for Yagna and Kumbabishegam. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, WMP Nos.589 to 591 of 2023 are also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.