← Library
Madras High CourtWP/21323/2017disposed of

A.Thirumalmurugan, v. The Commissioner,

2018-01-22Honourable Mr Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:22.01.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Petition No.21323 of 2017 A.Thirumalmurugan ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

2. The Special Officer, Sri Muthu Puthalai Ezhai Mariyamman Temple, Chevarayapet, Muthialpet, Puducherry.

..Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to address all the communication, correspondence, the name board, to publish any notice and print pamphlets relating to the affairs and matters of Sri Muthu Puthalai Ezhai Mariyamman temple, Muthialpet, Puducherry by inserting the village name "Chevarayapet' as "Sri Muthu Puthalai Ezhai Mariyamman Temple, Chevarayapet, Muthialpet'' by considering the petitioner's representation dated 29.06.2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajesh For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambiselvan, Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)

O R D E R

The present writ petition is filed seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to address all the communication, correspondence, the name board, to publish any notice and print pamphlets relating to the affairs and matters of Sri Muthu Puthalai Ezhai Mariyamman Temple, Muthialpet, Puducherry, by inserting the village name "Chevarayapet' as "Sri Muthu Puthalai Ezhai Mariyamman Temple, Chevarayapet, Muthialpet'' by considering their representation dated 29.06.2017.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said Temple is named without referring the Village name along with the deity's name. For which purpose, the petitioner made representation on 29.06.2017 and when the said representation has not been considered, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.

3. I do not think any legal ground to entertain the writ petition as the name of the deity as such is not disputed by the petitioner. What is their claim is that their village name is also to be added along with the name of the deity. Whether the village name is added or not, the Temple is administered by the respondent Government and therefore, for all practical purpose, the respondents will take care of the interest of the Temple when admittedly the name of the temple is shown with the deity's name. However, if the village name was also

there previously as per the Government gazette notification, it is for the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for continuing such village name with the name of the deity. As the petitioner cannot seek it as a matter of right, it is for the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in view of the contention that the said name of the village was already notified in the Government gazette along with the name of the said deity.

4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to look into the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, taking into consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances. Such exercise shall be done by the first respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

22.01.2018 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No vsi To

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

2. The Special Officer, Sri Muthu Puthalai Ezhai Mariyamman Temple, Chevarayapet, Muthialpet, Puducherry.

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

Vsi W.P.No.21323 of 2017 22.01.2018