A.Thalavai Pillai v. The Sub-Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL and W.M.P(MD)No.5140 of 2025 A.Thalavai Pillai ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thattaparai Police Station, Tuticorin District.
2. S,Senthilnayagam ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st respondent from granting permission for festival to temple called as Arulmigu Agini Muthamman Thirukovil, Keelasekkarakudi, 1/6
Srivaikundam Taluk by considering the petitioners representation dated 03.03.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.S. Kumar, For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For proposed : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah party
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to forbear the first respondent from granting permission for festival to be conducted in Arulmigu Agini Muthamman Thirukovil, Keelasekkarakudi, Srivaikundam Taluk by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2025.
2.According to the petitioner, he is the Dharmakartha of the said temple. While so, there is some misunderstanding between the parties in respect of worshiping the deity in the said temple, thereby, earlier, a writ 2/6
petition in W.P(MD)No.16299 of 2023 was filed, where the parties arrived at compromise. As per the compromise, Periya Raja Pillai family has to conduct festival in the month of Chithirai and the Chinna Raja Pillai family has to conduct festival in the month of Vaikasi. The second respondent belongs to Chinna Raja Pillai family i.e., the petitioner's group. But now without following the terms of compromise decided to conduct festival in the month of Panguni and thereby, he approached the first respondent seeking permission. If he is permitted to conduct the festival, it will affect the terms of compromise, create law and order problem, and also affect the temple administration. Therefore, the first respondent cannot grant permission for the festival. 3.
The learned Counsel for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent is the supporter of one A.Arumuganayinar, who wanted to conduct festival. The second respondent never approached the first respondent for conducting the festival but the said A.Arumuganayinar is not a party to the proceedings. Last year also the said A.Arumuganayinar approached this Court and conducted the festival in the month of Panguni. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
3/6
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent police would submit that both the parties claiming rights over the temple to conduct festival. Already, the parties have reached a settlement in W.P(MD)No.16299 of 2021. But last year, the said A.Arumuganayinar group conducted the festival in the month of Panguni. The said A.Arumuganayinar sent a representation, dated 10.03.2025 and the petitioner also sent the representation, dated 03.03.2025. Both the representations will be considered and disposed of within a period of two days.
5.Since the prayer of the petitioner is to forbear the first respondent from granting permission for festival in the said temple, to that effect the petitioner sent the representation, dated 03.03.2025 and the same has not been considered, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 03.03.2025 and the representation of the said A.Arumuganayinar, dated 10.03.2025, within a period of two days from the date of this order in accordance with law. 4/6
6.With the above observations and direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR Note:Issue Order copy on 14.03.2025 To
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thattaparai Police Station, Tuticorin District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P.DHANABAL , J.
LR 14.03.2025 6/6