Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 540 (MAD)

M. Sakthivel v. Superintendent of Police, Madurai

2024-03-06

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

body2024
JUDGMENT : SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J. Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to provide adequate Police protection to the festival of Sri Mahasivarathir Festival to be held at Sri Periandavar Swami Temple, Nalliveeranpatti Hamlet of Seemanoothu Revenue Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District on 8th and 9th March, 2024 based on Petitioner's representation, dated 27.02.2024. 1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had filed this petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, seeking direction against the Respondent Police to provide adequate Police protection to the festival of Sri Mahasivarathir Festival to be held at Sri Periandavar Swami Temple, Nalliveeranpatti Hamlet of Seemanoothu Revenue Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District on 08.03.2024 and 09.03.2024, based on Petitioner's representation, dated 27.02.2024. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor submitted that he had filed an impleading petition in W.M.P. (MD) No. 5241 of 2024. The same is allowed vide order dated 06.03.2024 and the Intervenor is impleaded as 6th Respondent. 3. As per the submission of the learned Counsel for the impleaded sixth Respondent, the Petitioner himself claims to be a “Periya Thevar” of the said Temple. Only the said “Periya Thevar” will distribute Holy ash (vibhuti) to the devotees as commencement of Sri Mahasivarathiri Festival, which is objected by the learned Counsel for the impleaded sixth Respondent stating that the sixth Respondent also has a right in the said Temple. The said Temple has 3 branches of hereditary trustee. During festival time, one of them is selected as “Periya Thevar” for commencement of the Temple festival and the selected “Periya Thevar” will distribute Holy ash (vibhuti) to all the devotees as symbolic customary of the tradition for commencement of the Temple festival. This tradition is followed for more than 200 years. For the past 15 years, since there was dispute between the 3 branches of the hereditary trustee, the Temple was closed without organizing the festival even on important occasions. In the last year, all the 3 branches agreed that instead of “Periya Thevar” the Priest himself can distribute Holy ash (vibhuti) to the devotees, as the customary and tradition for the commencement of the Sri Mahasivarathiri Festival. 4. In the last year, all the 3 branches agreed that instead of “Periya Thevar” the Priest himself can distribute Holy ash (vibhuti) to the devotees, as the customary and tradition for the commencement of the Sri Mahasivarathiri Festival. 4. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the impleaded sixth Respondent that instead of the Petitioner herein, if the Priest of the Temple himself distributes Holy ash (vibhuti) to the devotees as customary practice, they have no objection. The learned Counsel for the impleaded sixth Respondent made an objection for the Petitioner herein, who claims himself to be a “Periya Thevar” to follow the customary practice of distributing Holy ash (vibhuti) to the devotees of the Temple. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the impleaded sixth Respondent had made objections and seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) on instructions of the Respondent Police would submit that the Respondent Police does not have any objection, if both the parties agreed for conducting the Temple festival without any violence. Also the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submits that previously there was a dispute and the matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the impleaded sixth Respondent, this Court is of the view that the dispute regarding who shall conduct commencement of tradition, shall be relegated in future date by referring the dispute to the Civil Court concerned by either of the parties. Considering the dispute between the impleaded sixth Respondent and the Petitioner, the Respondents 2 and 3 in this Writ Petition are re-arranged as Respondents 4 and 5 and this Court suo motu impleads the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District and the Tahsildar, Usilampatti, Madurai District as Respondents 2 and 3 in this Writ Petition. Hence, the impleaded Respondents 2 and 3 shall convene the Peace Committee Meeting. The Respondents 4 and 5 shall issue summons to the rival parties in the Village, so that the Peace Committee Meeting is held today itself (06.03.2024) by 2.00 p.m. The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti/5th Respondent is directed to issue summons to the rival parties, so that the rival parties can approach the Tahsildar, Usilampatti by today itself (06.03.2024). 7. The Respondents 4 and 5 shall issue summons to the rival parties in the Village, so that the Peace Committee Meeting is held today itself (06.03.2024) by 2.00 p.m. The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti/5th Respondent is directed to issue summons to the rival parties, so that the rival parties can approach the Tahsildar, Usilampatti by today itself (06.03.2024). 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that if both the parties are agreeable for conducting the Temple festival amicably, the impleaded Respondents 2 and 3 shall pass appropriate orders. The impleaded Respondents 2 and 3 are having powers either to grant permission or to withhold the permission in the event of the parties not arriving at an amicable settlement. It is also made clear that only the Executive Magistrate is having ample power to pass appropriate orders. 8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.