Madras High CourtWMP(MD)/6863/2025ordered

Dhanapal R v. The Tahsildar

2025-04-01Honourable Mr Justice V. Lakshminarayanan6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01-04-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN IN WP(MD) NO. 9189 OF 2025 R.Dhanapal Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk Office, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

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

3. The Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

4. Ramasamy

5. Mothilal

6. Chinnaraj Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.Gomathisankar For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader for R-1 Mr.M.Karunanithi 1/6

Government Advocate for R-2 & R-3 Mr.C.Prithiv Raj for R-4 to R-6

ORDER

I heard Mr.G.Gomathisankar for the petitioner, Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent, Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.C.Prithiv Raj for the respondents 4 to 6.

2. The dispute relates to performance of festival at Arulmigu Vinayagar, Sri Kaliamman, Sri Mariamman, Sri Muniyandi and Sri Karuppanasamy Temple at S.Paraipatti, Singarakottai Village, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

3. Prior to this Writ Petition, another Writ Petition came to be filed before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.8647 of 2025. After hearing the State respondents, this Court ordered the Writ Petition in the following terms:

"7.Since the cultural programme is scheduled to be held on 31.03.2025 and the time is also too short, though the peace committee meeting is fixed today, without affecting the rights of the parties in conducting the festival, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in respect of conducting cultural programme positively and also provide adequate police protection for the said programme on 31.03.2025. If any rival party want to conduct 2/6

the programme on alternative date, the same can also be considered by the official respondents."

4. A reading of the above order shows that this Court had directed the respondents to permit conducting cultural programme and also to provide adequate police protection for the said programme on 31.03.2025. It is not in dispute that the cultural programme was held yesterday. The problem that arises today is regarding the festival to be conducted from 01.04.2025 to 04.04.2025.

5. Mr.Gomathi Sankar pleads that the petitioner has been a Poosari for Mariamman Temple for more than ten years. This plea is stoutly resisted by the learned counsel for the contesting private respondents. The status of the petitioner as "Oor Periya Pannai" is also in dispute.

6. The respondents 4 to 6 have, on previous occasions, celebrated the festival for the aforesaid temples on different dates from those celebrated by the writ petitioner. As an interim arrangement, I am inclined to follow the same pattern for this year also. The petitioner claims that the State respondents 1 to 3 are preventing the holding of the festival.

7. Mr.A.Kannan and Mr.M.Karunanithi in unison state that the State respondents are not preventing anyone from celebrating the festival, but it is the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6, who are creating a problem for the conduct of the festival. 3/6

8. On account of the private dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6, the temple festival need not come to a grinding halt as has happened last year.

9. Since the petitioner has already been permitted to hold the function in terms of the order in W.P.(MD).No.8647 of 2025 dated 28.03.2025, I pass the following directions: i. The petitioner herein, namely, R.Dhanapal (Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.8647 of 2025) is permitted to celebrate the festival from 01.04.2025 to 04.04.2025. ii. The respondents 4 to 6 shall celebrate the festival between 06.04.2025 and 08.04.2025.

iii.As to who is the Poosari for the temple would have to be decided by the jurisdictional Civil Court and not by the respondents 1 to 3. iv.For the function to be celebrated by the writ petitioner, either he or any other person appointed by him can perform the rights as Poosari. The respondents 4 to 6 will not interfere with the same.

v. Similarly, for the function to be celebrated by the respondents 4 to 6, either they or any other person appointed by them shall function as a Poosari and the writ petitioner will not interfere with the same.

vi.The respondents 1 to 3 shall ensure that both the functions conducted by the petitioner as well as by the respondents 4 to 6 go on smoothly. In case any 4/6

mischievous element attempts to interfere with the same, the respondents 1 to 3 shall swing into action and take necessary steps to prevent any untoward incident from taking place.

10. This Writ Miscellaneous Petition is ordered in the above terms. sd/- 01/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / 01/04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

LM TO 1 THE TAHSILDAR VEDASANDUR TALUK OFFICE, VEDASANDUR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VEDASANDUR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 CC to M/s.G.GOMATHI SANKAR, Advocate ( SR-3729[I] dated 01/04/2025 ) 5/6

ORDER

IN WMP(MD) No.6863 of 2025 in WP(MD) NO. 9189 OF 2025 No. of Date :01/04/2025 HPS/SAR / 01.04.2025/6P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023.

6/6