P.Saravanan, S/O.S.Pandian, v. The District Collector,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.04.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH W.P.(MD) No.1170 of 2016 and WMP(MD)Nos.967, 6622 & 6623 of 2016 P.Saravanan ... Petitioner -vs1.
The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul 2.
The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul 3.
The Tahsildar, Aathoor Taluk, Dindigul District 4.
The Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District 5.
S.Kandan 6.
P.Gurunathan 7.
C.Periyapandi 8.
C.Chinnapandi 9.
S.Balu 10.
P.Chinnasamy 11.
A.Pandi 12.
K.Arumugam 13.
K.Ravi 14.
A.Rajiv Gandhi 15.
S.Thangarasu 16.
K.Seenivasan 17.
B.Murugan 18.
B.Vetrivel .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his men in respect of the administration of the
temples by name Sri.Pappathi Amman, Sri.Kayakara Amman and Sri.Karuppanasamy Temple situated at Pushpapuri, Aalamarathupatti Village & Udkidai, Chinnalapatti Ulvattam, Aathoor Taluk, Dindigul District on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 17.01.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondent : Mr.D.Muruganandam, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to 4 Mr.S.Sukumar for RR5,11,12,14 & 16 Mr.V.Palanichamy for RR6 to 10, 13,15,17 & 18
O R D E R
It is seen that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 18 with regard to the administration of the temples by name Sri.Pappathi Amman, Sri.Kayakara Amman and Sri.Karuppanasamy Temple situated at Pushpapuri, Aalamarathupatti Village & Udkidai, Chinnalapatti Ulvattam, Aathoor Taluk, Dindigul District. While so, the petitioner has given a representation dated 17.01.2016 to the 2nd respondent for giving him police protection against threat from the respondents 5 to 17.
2. Mr.S.Sukumar, and Mr.V.Palanichamy, learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 18, submitted that they have no objection in all the parties including the petitioner worshipping in the said temple without any reservation whatsoever.
3. Per contra, Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there are several murder cases against the respondents 5 to 18 and in the guise of worshipping, they will attempt to take possession and administration of the said temples.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that they only want permission to worship in the temples and they have no intention of taking over the administration of the said temple.
5. This Court cannot decide about the civil rights of parties with regard to administration of a temple in a writ petition and those rights have to be decided only by the civil Court. However, since the parties want to worship in the temple, this Court is of the view that it will serve the interest of justice, if the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural to consider the representation dated 17.01.2016 given by the petitioner and call all the parties including the petitioner and respondents 5 to 18, after 30.05.2016 and conduct a peace committee meeting to bring about amicable settlement between the parties only for the purpose of peaceful worshipping in the temple.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (W) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar RR To 1.
The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul 2.
The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul 3.
The Tahsildar, Aathoor Taluk, Dindigul District 4.
The Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District 5 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural, Dindigul.
+1CC to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.24645 +1CC to Mr.V.Palanichamy Advocate Sr.No.24374 GJM/GSV/MP/10.5.16-3p-8C W.P.(MD)No.1170 of 2016 and WMP(MD)Nos.967, 6622 & 27.04.2016