G.Bose v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN in WP(MD) NO. 6693 of 2025 G.Bose Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The District Collector Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Tahsildar, Kamudhi, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
5.Kumaravel S/o.Sathan 1/7
6.Pandi 7.Ponnusamy 8.Kumaravel S/o.Veeraiyan 9.Balasubramanian 10.Thanikodi 11.Shanmugam Respondent(s) Prayer:- This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to provisionally grant permission to conduct maha kumbabiseka vila of Arul Mighu Sree Mahakaliamman and Sree Muniyappa Samy temple, Peterpuram, Peraiyur, Kamudhi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District to be held on 15.03.2025 and 16.03.2025 pending disposal of the present writ petition. For Petitioner(s):
M.Jerin Mathew, Advocate For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate for R1 To R3 Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate for R4 Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil, Advocate for R7 and R8
ORDER
Heard Mr.Jerin Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate for the fourth respondent, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Mahaboob Fazil, learned counsel 2/7
for the respondents 7 and 8.
2.Considering the urgency involved in the matter, orders are being passed only in the interlocutory application.
3.There exist in Peterpuram, Peraiyur, Kamudhi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District two temples. One is Sri Mahakaliamman and other, Sri Muniyapa Samy Temple. The principle communities in the area are Devendrakula Velalars and Arunthathiyars. It is not in dispute that Sri Mahakaliamman temple has been worshipped exclusively by persons belonging to Devendrakula Velalar community. Insofar as Sri Muniyapa Samy temple is concerned, it is not exclusive for any one community, but both Devendrakula Velalars and Arunthathiyars offer their prayers to the deity.
4.The petitioner before me belongs to Devendrakula Velalar community. He pleads that his community wants to perform Maha Kumbabishegam for both the temples. Since issues arose between the two communities, he requires a direction to perform Maha Kumbabishegam tomorrow (15.03.2025) for both the deities. 5.When the matter came up for admission yesterday, I directed the State respondents to get instructions from their clients. I posted the matter today. When I took up the matter today, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy was instructed to appear on behalf of the private respondents 7 and 8.
3/7
6.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy states that those belonging to Arunthathiyar community do not have any objection for the performance of Maha Kumbabishegam at Sri Mahakaliamman temple. This statement is recorded. He states that disputes arose on account of the fact that those belonging to Devendrakula Velalar community, who are numerically more than the Arunthathiyars, without consultation with the latter, are attempting to instal an idol of Sri Muniyapa Samy by removing the old idol in the area. He states that the custom and usage of Arunthathiyars of the village is to perform prayers to the trident (jpup#yk;) and the platform (gPlk;) rather than to the idol itself. He states that the present idol was subsequently installed by those belonging to Devendrakula Velalar community.
7.In addition, he states that insofar as Muniyapa Samy Temple is concerned, two separate Poojaries were engaged by the respective communities for performance of worship. He asserts that without permission from the Arunthathiyars, those belonging to Devendrakula Velalar community erected a gate and a fence around Muniyapa Samy temple. He points out that matters went to head, the Tahsildar of Kamudhi Taluk had to interfere. He called for a peace committee meeting on 04.03.2025 and held the meeting on 06.03.2025. 8.Mr.Jerin Mathew states that those belonging to Devendrakula Velalar community have already removed the gate and are willing to remove the fence 4/7
around the Muniyapa Samy Temple. His plea is that for the replacement of idol of Muniyapa Samy, 40 days ceremony has already been performed and the idol is ready for installation. He states, in case the idol is not removed from the place, where it has been prepared for installation, his clients fear that it might bring bad omen upon the entire village irrespective of the community. Therefore, he insists for performance of Maha Kumbabishegam for both the temples simultaneously. 9.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. 10.This is a matter, which requires to be handled with extreme delicacy. The sentiments of the villagers are involved. No order must force upon the parties to lis. It might result in caste tensions.
11.The statement of Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy that his clients have no objection for performance of Maha Kumbabishegam at Sri Mahakaliamman temple and the Karuppasamy temple is welcome. Therefore, the petitioner will be entitled to perform the Maha Kumbabishegam at both Sri Mahakaliamman temple and Karuppasamy temple tomorrow, namely 15.03.2025.
12.With respect to the idol that has been made ready, it can await, peace to be arrived at, by atleast one week. The fear that the idol cannot be kept for an indefinite period of time at the place, where it is currently being prepared, can be addressed by directing the idol to be placed in the precincts of Muniyapa Samy Temple without the 5/7
same being consecrated. It is hoped that the good offices of Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy and Mr.Jerin Mathew will be able to arrive at a solution for Muniyapa Samy Temple by next week.
13.The State respondents shall ensure that the function is carried on peacefully without hindrance from any one. In case, any mischievous element attempts to prevent the celebration to be held tomorrow or the placing of Muniyappa Samy idol (without consecration) inside the existing premises, they shall immediately take appropriate action and ensure that the function goes on peacefully. 14.Writ Miscellaneous Petition is ordered, accordingly. sd/- 14/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / 14/03/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
MM TO
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, RAMANATHAPURAM.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PARAMAKUDI TALUK, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3. THE THASILDHAR KAMUDHI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
6/7
4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAIYUR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN in WP(MD) NO. 6693 of 2025 Date :14/03/2025 SA/SAR. /14.03.2025/7P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 7/7