Ponramu v. Kaviarasu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Cont.P.(MD)No.858 of 2025 and WP.(MD)No.13867 of 2024 and WP.(MD)No.5567 of 2025 and WMP.(MD)Nos.4065 & 4066 of 2025 Cont.P.(MD)No.858 of 2025 Ponramu ... Petitioner Vs.
1.Mr.Kaviarasu, The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District.
2.Arumugham 3.Ashok 4.The Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department, Pudukottai District.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 1/16
Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
... Respondents (R4 & R5 suo motu impleaded as per order dated 01.04.2025 in Cont.P. (MD)No.858 of 2025) Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, to punish the contemnors / respondents for their willful, deliberate and disobedience of the order passed by this Court in WP. (MD)No.1191 of 2018 dated 03.03.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar For R1 & R5 : Mr.F.Deepak, Special Government Pleader.
For R4 : Mr.S.S.Madhavan, Additional Government Pleader.
For R2 & R3 : Mr.R.Paranjothi for KBS Law Office.
WP.(MD)No.13867 of 2024 Ashok ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
2/16
2.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police Office, Pudukkottai & District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Iluppur Taluk, Pudukkottai & District.
4.The Assistant Commissioner, O/o. Hindu & Religious Department, Pudukkottai & District.
5.The Inspector of HR & CE, O/o. Hindu & Religious Department Office, Kulathur & Taluk, Pudukkottai & District.
6.The Tashildar, Taluk Office at Keeranur, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
7.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police Office, Pudukkottai & District.
8.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Keeranur & Taluk, Pudukkottai & District.
9.Ponramu 10.Punniyamoorthy ... Respondents 3/16
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 8 to grant permission to perform the goat sacrifice pooja by the petitioner's villagers (Kalaikudipatti Village) any suitable date in the Tamil month of "Aadi" or any convenient date for this year of 2024 by considering the petitioner's representation on 01.06.2024 to the official respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Paranjothi for KBS Law Office.
For R1, R3 & R6 : Mr.F.Deepak, Special Government Pleader.
For R4 & R5 : Mr.S.S.Madhavan, Additional Government Pleader.
For R2, R7 & R8 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R9 & R10 : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar WP.(MD)No.5567 of 2025 Ponramu ... Petitioner Vs.
4/16
1.The District Collector, O/o. District Collector, Pudukottai District.
2.The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District.
6.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Pudukottai District.
7.The Inspector of Police, HR & CE, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District.
8.The Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Pudukottai District.
9.Ashok 5/16
10.Arumugasami 11.Selvaraj ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records in connection with the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide proceedings Reference NA.KA.A5/64/2024 dated 21.08.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 8 to strictly comply with the order passed by this Court in WP.(MD)No.1191 of 2018 dated 03.03.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar For R1, R2 & R5 : Mr.F.Deepak, Special Government Pleader.
For R6 & R7 : Mr.S.S.Madhavan, Additional Government Pleader.
For R3, R4 & R8 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R9 to R11 : Mr.R.Paranjothi for KBS Law Office.
6/16
COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in this contempt petition and writ petitions is one and the same, both the petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.
2.It is very unfortunate that these petitions have been filed with regard to the sacrifice of goat in a village temple, situated at Kalaikudi Pond, Killukulavaipatti, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai district. 3.The petitioner in the contempt petition / Ponramu has filed a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.1191 of 2018 seeking a writ of Mandamus that he has been ex-communicated from the village and for a direction to the respondent Police to take action as against the private respondents. In the said writ petition, the private respondents have represented that there is no question of ex-communication or untouchability in the village and that they only insisted for separate goat sacrifice during the festival, which was exaggerated by Ponramu, 7/16
as if they are practicing untouchability in the village and filed the said writ petition with false averments. In the said writ petition, the private respondents have confirmed the right of Ponramu as hereditary poojari. However, they are having issue with regard to the sharing of meat of the goat, which was sacrificed during festival and it must be distributed equally among all the villagers at the spot itself. Recording the submissions made on either side, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 03.03.2023 as under:- 5.Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that there is no excommunication or untouchability, as alleged. They insisted for a separate cattle sacrificing (fplhbtl;L) festival, since the petitioner has not shared the meat with all the villagers.
It has been exaggerated as if they are practicing untouchability. The private respondents are always ready to celebrate the festival along with the petitioner and other villagers. They are not disputing the petitioner-s right as hereditary poojari, however, their grievance is only with regard to the non~sharing of the meat to all the villagers, at the spot itself.
6.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in response, submitted that if the issue is with regard to the sharing of meat, he will advise his client to ensure that the meat which were sacrificed (fplhbtl;L) to the deity would be distributed equally among all the villagers at the spot itself.
7.Recording the submissions made on behalf of the respective Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of. This Court expects the respective Counsel to advise their parties to maintain peace while performing the pooja and cattle sacrifice (fplhbtl;L) for the deity, Arulmigu Muniandavar. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
4.Now, Ponramu has filed the contempt petition in Cont.P. (MD)No.858 of 2025 that the orders of this Court dated 03.03.2023 has not been followed by the official respondents as well as the private respondents. Considering the submissions made, this Court vide order dated 01.04.2025 has suo motu impleaded the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Pudukottai and the Revenue Divisional Officer, 9/16
Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District as respondents 4 & 5 in the contempt petition.
5.In the meantime, the ninth respondent in WP.(MD)No.1191 of 2018 / Ashok has filed a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.13867 of 2024 seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 8 to grant permission to perform goat sacrifice pooja during festival. Ponramu has also filed another writ petition in WP.(MD)No.5567 of 2025 seeking to quash the order passed by the second respondent therein and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 8 to strictly comply with the order passed by this Court in WP.(MD)No.1191 of 2018 dated 03.03.2023. 6.According to the learned counsel appearing for Ponramu, the Schedule Caste people are administering the temple and they are performing pooja from time memorial. They used to sacrifice goat and cook the meat on the spot and distribute to the villagers on the very same day. However, the private respondents are raising issue with regard to the cooking of the meat by them and therefore, the entire 10/16
issue arose.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents in contempt petition and petitioner in WP.(MD)No.13867 of 2024 submits that they are not raising any issue with regard to the poosariship and also with regard to the sharing of the meat. However, they are having some objections with regard to the cooking of the meat and they claim some representation, while cooking the meat. 8.Considering this trivial nature of dispute between the villagers, this Court referred the matter to the Mediation and also appointed Mr.K.Jeyamohan, learned counsel, as a Mediator. The mediator appears to have made certain proposals. However, he expressed his difficulty in resolving the issue between the parties. 9.The contempt petitioner / Ponramu claims that his group alone can cook the meat and distribute to the devotees. The private respondents seek some representation in the cooking. It appears that in 11/16
view of the dispute between the parties, the sacrifice of the goat has been stopped for this year. The Inspector, HR & CE Department, who is present before this Court, submits that till 2013, it was the Schedule Caste people, who cooked the meat, which has been offered for sacrifice. However, after 2013, the opposite group is not accepting for it and they want some representation in the cooking. 10.The temple is a public temple and the same is also administered by HR & CE Department. The opposite group, who are raising certain issues with regard to the cooking by the petitioner's group, are having a remedy before the Joint commissioner, HR & CE Department, Pudukottai District. Therefore reserving the right to submit an application before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Pudukottai District to have a representation in the cooking, this Court in order to give quietus to this issue for the present, permits the contempt petitioner to continue the practice which was followed upto 2013.
12/16
11.The rival group shall workout their remedy before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Pudukottai District. The Inspector, HR & CE Department, Kulathur, Pudukottai shall be present during the festival and shall also ensure that both the groups are participating in the festival peacefully.
12.With the above directions and observations, the contempt petition and writ petitions are closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 23.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gns 13/16
To 1.Mr.Kaviarasu, The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District.
2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police Office, Pudukkottai & District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Iluppur Taluk, Pudukkottai & District.
5.The Assistant Commissioner, O/o. Hindu & Religious Department, Pudukkottai & District.
6.The Inspector of HR & CE, O/o. Hindu & Religious Department Office, Kulathur & Taluk, Pudukkottai & District.
7.The Tashildar, Taluk Office at Keeranur, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
14/16
8.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police Office, Pudukkottai & District.
9.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Keeranur & Taluk, Pudukkottai & District.
10.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Pudukottai District.
11.The Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Pudukottai District.
12.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
15/16
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gns Cont.P.(MD)No.858 of 2025 and WP.(MD)No.13867 of 2024 and WP.(MD)No.5567 of 2025 23.06.2025 16/16