Madras High CourtWP(MD)/2128/2025disposed of

Periyasamy v. The District Collector

2025-01-23Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.1501 of 2025 Periyasamy ... Petitioner /Vs./

1. The District Collector Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2. The Superintendent of Police Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

3. The Sub Collector Pudukkottai.

4. The District Revenue Officer Pudukkottai.

5. The Inspector of Police K.Pudupatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

6. The Tahsildar Tirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

7. Danasekar

8. Ganesan

9. Kailasam

10. Shanmugam

11. Kamaraj ... Respondents P RAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 6 to conduct an 1/4

enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 11.01.2025 after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondents 7 to 11 to avoid law and order problem and pass an order within a stipulated time which may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Anand For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhi Raj Special Government Pleader for R1,3,4&6 : Mrs.M.Aasha, Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R2&5

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents 1 to 6 to conduct an enquiry based on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 11.01.2025, alleging that the respondents 7 to 11 are attempting to demolish the private temple worshipped by the petitioner and others, viz., Sri Vinayagar temple situated in the land comprised in S.No.447/2 (old S.No.8/7) situated at K.Rayapuram, 115, Tirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District, to an extent of 67 cents.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

2/4

3. It is seen that the respondents 7 to 7 are attempting to demolish the temple in order to construct new temple. However, the petitioner and other general public are objecting the same and also submitted representation to the respondents 1 to 6 herein.

4. Admittedly, it is a private temple and it is not coming under the purview of H.R & C.E Board. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 6 have no say in the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 7 to 11 herein. However, there is any law and order issue, the petitioner is at liberty to lodge complaint before the sixth respondent. On receipt of the same, the sixth respondent is directed to deal with the complaint in accordance with law.

5. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Internet : Yes/No 23.01.2025 NCC : Yes / No LS Note: Issue order copy on 23.01.2025 3/4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

LS TO:-