Kamanan v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Kamanan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

3. The Tahsildar, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

4. Manipandi (Poojari)

5. Pandi (Periyadhanam)

6. Raja

7. Muthupandi ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 2 to conduct a detail enquiry based upon the complaint dated 19.03.2025 and initiate appropriate action against the respondents 4 to 7 and ensure that the petitioner is given the usual status and 'Oor Mariyathai' to be Page No. 1 of 6

given to the petitioner / Oor Servai in the temple festival of Rajakaliamman Kovil situated at Ward no. 11, N.Pudupatti, Nilakottai, Dindigul district to be held between 08.04.2025 to 10.04.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajini For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) For R3 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate For R4 to R7 : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct respondents no.1 to 2 to conduct a detail enquiry based upon the complaint dated 19.03.2025 and initiate appropriate action against the respondents no.4 to 7 and ensure that the petitioner is given the usual status and 'Oor Mariyathai' to be given to the petitioner in the temple festival of "Rajakaliamman Kovil" situated at N.Pudupatti, Nilakottai, Dindigul District to be held between 08.04.2025 to 10.04.2025.

2. Mr.Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) takes notice for the respondents no.1 and 2, Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Page No. 2 of 6

3rd respondent and Mr.S. Sarvagan Prabhu, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents no.4 to 7.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2 would submit that already the representation of the petitioner was considered and closed. As far as the prayer in respect of usual status and 'Oor Mariyathai' to be given to the petitioner is concerned, that cannot be considered by the respondents. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this case.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that no any prayer sought for as against the 3rd respondent and the prayer is only against the respondents no.1 and 2 and the prayer itself is misconceived. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.4 to 7 would submit that already the son of the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.6315 of 2025 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 10.03.2025. Now the petitioner/father has filed this petition for the same Page No. 3 of 6

relief. Therefore, the status and 'Oor Mariyathai' can not be given to a particular person. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the prayer sought for in the petition and already the representation of the petitioner was considered and closed by the 2nd respondent and the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner's son in W.P.No.6315 of 2025 dated 10.03.2025 was also disposed of, no further orders required to be passed in this case. In view of the same, this writ petition is closed. No costs.

03.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Mac Page No. 4 of 6

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

3. The Tahsildar, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page No. 5 of 6

P.DHANABAL, J.

Mac 03.04.2025 Page No. 6 of 6