G.Sountharajan v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.13118 of 2023 1.
G.Sountharajan 2.
D.Ruthra Kottai 3.
N.Boopalan 4.
K.Mahadevan 5.
M.Sasi Kumar
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.
The District Collector, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District. 2.
The Superintendent of Police, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District. 3.
The District Revenue Officer, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District. 4.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District. 5.
The Inspector of Police, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District. 6.
The Thasildhar, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District. 1/9
7.
S.Vital Ragavan 8.
S.Aunagiri 9.
N.Gopala Krishnan
10. N.Partha Sarathy
11. A.Imayavaruman
...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 to consider the representation given by the petitioners on 27.03.2023 and 01.04.2023 and allow both the villagers to conduct the "Brahma Utchavam" for this year (2023) jointly.
For Petitioners : Dr.V.Venkatesan For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagu Goutham, GA, for R1 to R6
O R D E R
The petitioners have filed this Writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to consider the petitioners' representations dated 27.03.2023 & 01.04.2023 and to consequently, allow both the villagers to conduct the "Brahma Utchavam" for this year (2023) jointly.
2. Mr.M.Alagu Goutham, learned Government Advocate takes notice 2/9
for the respondents 1 to 6. In view of the consent expressed by the Learned counsel appearing on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. Since no adverse order is being passed against the respondents 7 to 11, notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.
4. The case of the petitioners is that they belong to Echur Village. The people living in Echur Village and the Puliyur village, which is situated next to the Echur Village, together conduct "Brahma Utchavam" for every five years in the "Dharmaraja Temple Udanurai Arulmigu Dhraupathi Amman Temple". While so, the Puliyur village people under the leadership of the private respondents herein are planning to conduct the festival by omitting the Echur village people. Therefore, the Echur village people gave a representation dated 27.03.2023 before the respondents 1 to 3, seeking to conduct meeting in between the Echur and Puliyur village people, which evoked no response. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the officials, the Echur village people made another reminder representation dated 01.04.2023 before the respondents 1 to 6. Pursuant to the said representation, though the people from the Echur and Puliyur Village were 3/9
called for meeting by the 6th respondent on 13.04.2023, however, the meeting ended up without any final decision and till date, no final orders have been passed on the above said representations made by the petitioner village people. Hence, this Writ petition.
5. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to consider the representations dated 27.03.20203 and 01.04.2023 and to consequently allow both the Echur and Puliyur village people to jointly conduct "Brahma Utchavam" for this year.
6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 submitted that, initially, the Puliyur village people decided to conduct festival in the "Dharmaraja Temple Udanurai Arulmigu Dhraupathi Amman Temple". While so, the petitioners/Echur village people made strong objections stating that, the people from Hindu Adi Dravidar Community should not be added as Ubayadhaarargal (Donors) for conducting the festival in the above said temple. Due to which, there arose some dispute in between the Echur and Puliyur village people. Further, the peace committee meeting conducted by the 6th respondent also ended in vain, as the 4/9
petitioners/Echur village people strongly objected for accepting the Hindu Adi Dravidar Community people as Donors for conducting festival.
7. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions submitted that, the Echur village people are also ready to accept the Hindu Adi Dravidar Community people as Donors for conducting festival and sought for necessary direction to the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer to allow both the Echur and Puliyur village people to jointly conduct festival by accepting the Hindu Adi Dravidar Community people as Donors.
8. In view of the fair submission made by the petitioners stating that, the Echur village people are ready to accept the people from Hindu Adi Dravidar Community as Donors for conducting festivals, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct enquiry in between the Echur and Puliyur village people and pass appropriate orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and private respondents.
9. With the above observations and directions, this Writ petition 5/9
stands disposed of. No costs.
27.04.2023 (1/2) skt Speaking Order : Yes/ No Index : Yes/ No To 1.
The District Collector, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District.
2.
The Superintendent of Police, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District.
3.
The District Revenue Officer, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District.
4.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District.
5.
The Inspector of Police, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District.
6.
The Thasildhar, Tirukalukundarm Taluk, Chengalpattu District.
6/9
M.DHANDAPANI., J.
skt W.P.No.13118 of 2023 (1/2) 7/9
27.04.2023 WMP.No.12884 of 2023 in W.P.No.13118 of 2023 M.DHANDAPANI, J.
In view of amendment to the Court fee rules, this petition is allowed, subject to payment of separate Court fee, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which this order shall be applicable only to 8/9
the first petitioner.
27.04.2023 (2/2) skt 9/9