R.Pandiaraj, S/O. Ramasamy, v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN R.Pandiaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3. The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluka, Sivagangai Distirct.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
5. The Inspector of Police, Poovanthi, Mana Madurai Taluka, Sivagangai District.
6. The Sub Inspector of Police, Palayanur Police Station, Mana Madurai Taluka, Sivagangai District.
7. Sakthi
8. Krishnasamy ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second and third respondents to ensure to carry out the painting works without any disturbance from the seventh and eighth respondents at Arulmigu Muthu Mariamman Temple, Vilathur, Mana Madurai Taluka, in compliance with the direction of this Court passed in W.A.(MD) No.1268 of 2018 and based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.01.2019 within stipulated time limit, in accordance with law. 1/3
For Petitioner : Mr.Prasanna Rajadurai For R1 to R6 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R7 & R8 : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
ORDER
The petitioner herein had approached this court for the second time alleging that his intention to renovate the temple, namely Arulmigu Muthu Mariamman Temple, been prevented by the seventh and eighth respondents.
2.Earlier when the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.A.(MD)No.1268 of 2018, this Court had directed the authorities to ensure the completion of the painting work started by the petitioner herein, by convening peace meet between the disputed parties. Despite that the seventh and eighth respondents had not allowed the petitioner to complete the painting work, which is in half way. Therefore, he has come before this Court for the second time through this writ petition.
3.Now, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents states that since the petitioner and seventh and eighth respondents had never allowed the completion of painting work of the temple, the third party has involved in completion of painting and renovation work at his cost. Therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition.
4.Recording the above submission, this writ petition is dismissed. This Court is of the view that in the name of devotion, the people like the petitioner and respondents 7 & 8 had an ego to prevent the completion of the temple renovation work. However, now, the Goddess itself find an alternative and suitable person for completing the renovation work. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) gns Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
2/3
To
1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3. The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluka, Sivagangai Distirct.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
5. The Inspector of Police, Poovanthi, Mana Madurai Taluka, Sivagangai District.
6. The Sub Inspector of Police, Palayanur Police Station, Manamadurai Taluka, Sivagangai District.
7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.S.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, Advocate (SR-38936[F] dated 15/12/2021 ) 14.12.2021 USK (27.12.2021) 3P 9C 3/3