Arumugam v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and WMP Crl.(MD)No.65 of 2025 Arumugam ... Petitioner versus

1. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Nerkuppai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3. The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent by his proceeding in Na.Ka.No. 07/VIPS/Proceedings/2025 dated 28.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to grant permission and to provide adequate police protection for conducting the 1/6

Valli Thirumanam Nagadagam scheduled to be held on 21.06.2025 or any other subsequent dates at about night 10.00 p.m. to 5.00 during the festival of Arulmigu Manjal Neer Kattu Iyyanar Temple at Pappanpatti village, Konnathanpatti Post, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Mahendran For R1 and R2 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.F.Deepak, Special Government Pleader For Intervenor : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi

ORDER

The petitioner is a native of Pappanpatti Village. He submitted a representation to the respondent Police seeking permission and to provide adequate police protection for conducting Valli Thirumanam Naadagam during the festival of Arulmigu Manjal Neer Kattu Iyyanar Temple, situated at Pappanpatti Village, Konnathanpatti Post, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. The 2nd respondent, by his proceedings dated 28.05.2025 rejected the petitioner's representation. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2/6

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that some of the villagers are opposing the petitioner for conducting Valli Thirumanam Naadagam.

3. Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi, learned counsel representing the villagers, seeks permission to file an application for intervening in this petition and submits that the villagers are having an issue with the petitioner, since he has not contributed any amount for Kumbabhishekam. According to him, the villagers with great difficulty, collected the amount and conducted Kumbabhishekam in a grand manner. However, the petitioner, who is residing in Chennai, has neglected and not contributed any amount to the villagers for Kumbabhishekam. Whereas, in order to show his strength, he is now conducting Valli Thirumanam Naadagam, when the festival has already been over.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the same and submits that the petitioner has contributed the tax, which has been collected by the villagers. Few people are now opposing the petitioner 3/6

for conducting Valli Thirumanam Naadagam. He further submits that the petitioner is conducting Valli Thirumanam Naadagam in the Panchayat Drama Stage and not in the temple. He further submits that this event may help some of the actors in the village.

5. This Court considered the rival submissions made.

6. The proposed Valli Thirumanam Naadagam is not an objectionable one. It is only depicting the marriage of Lord Muruga with Lord Valli. Therefore, there cannot be any objection from the villagers. Moreover, the objection of the villagers is that the petitioner has not contributed anything for Kumbabhishekam. The petitioner has denied that he has contributed the tax, which has been collected by the villagers.

7. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No. 07/VIPS/Proceedings/2025 dated 28.05.2025 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and grant permission for conducting Valli Thirumanam Naadagam, by imposing 4/6

usual conditions. The respondent Police shall ensure that the programme is conducted in a peaceful manner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

20.06.2025 Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

NCC : Yes / No.

ogy To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Nerkuppai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3. The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

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

5/6

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 20.06.2025 6/6