M.S.Ramachandran v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI M.S.Ramachandran ... Petitioner versus
1. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Iluppur Taluk, Iluppur, Pudukkottai District.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
4. The Tahsildar, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
5. The Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathi Police Station, Pudukkottai.
1/8
6. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karaiyur Police Station, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai.
7. P.L.Subbaiah ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 5th respondent herein to grant permission and police protection to the petitioner to celebrate the festival every year during the 9th day of Tamil month Aadi to "Arulmigu Megakaruppar @ Mettukaruppar Swamy, Kandeduthanpatti, Arasamalai, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukkottai District scheduled to be celebrated this year on 25.07.2025 on the basis of the representation dated 29.05.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.Babu Rajendran For R1 to R6 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor For R7 : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar
ORDER
The petitioner is a resident of Kandeduthanpatti, Arasamalai, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukkottai District. He claims that he is a devotee of Arulmigu Megakaruppar @ Mettukaruppar Swamy, situated at 2/8
Kandeduthanpatti, Arasamalai, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukkottai District. He has filed this writ petition seeking permission and to provide police protection to conduct the festival of Arulmigu Megakaruppar @ Mettukaruppar Swamy, during the 9th day of Tamil month Aadi, by considering his representation dated 29.05.2025.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the village, there are two groups. Though there are two groups, all are the same community, however, they are having some difference of opinion. The group of the 7th respondent is dominating and not allowing the petitioner's group to perform the pooja during the festival period. Therefore, for the past 10 years, the petitioner's group is conducting festival separately and they are performing the pooja separately. The learned counsel has also relied upon the earlier order of this Court passed in W.A.(MD)No.923 of 2015, dated 01.09.2015 and submits that this Court permitted the petitioner to conduct the festival separately and therefore, the petitioner requested this Court to 3/8
pass a similar order as that of the earlier order of this Court passed in W.A.(MD)No.923 of 2015 dated 01.09.2015 by permitting the petitioner to conduct the festival separately on 25.07.2025 (i.e. 9th day of Aadi).
3. Mr.R.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel, takes notice for the 7th respondent/the appellant in W.A.(MD)No.923 of 2015 and submits that they are not discriminating the petitioner. The petitioner is unnecessarily creating problem with the villagers and conducting the festival separately. According to the learned counsel, there are 1600 thalaikattudars in the village and all 1600 thalaikattudars are jointly conducting the festival. However, the petitioner alone is raising certain issue with the persons, who are conducting the festival jointly and also filed this writ petition for mandamus seeking permission to conduct the festival separately. The learned counsel further submits that they have not fixed the date yet for the festival. He also assures that they will conduct the festival by including the petitioner and they are not 4/8
showing any discrimination and they are not preventing the petitioner's group from performing the pooja during the festival.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the same and submits that though the learned counsel for the 7th respondent gives an undertaking before this Court, the reality is different. The petitioner and his group are not permitted in the festival for past 10 years, which necessitated the petitioner to file this writ petition.
5. Considering the rival submissions, this Court suggests the petitioner and the 7th respondent to conduct the festival in the presence of an Advocate for conducting the festival peacefully and jointly.
6. The learned counsel on either side agreed for the same. Therefore, this Court appoints Mr.K.Prabhu, learned counsel, who is having an experience of 23 years, as Mediator and Observer for conducting the festival peacefully in Arulmigu Megakaruppar @ 5/8
Mettukaruppar Swamy, Kandeduthanpatti, Arasamalai, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukkottai District. The petitioner's group as well as the 7th respondent's group shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) each, to the Observer for spending his valuable time during the festival. The Observer shall ensure that the festival is conducted peacefully and every one in the village is allowed to participate in the temple festival and worship the deity in a peaceful manner. In the event, if the Observer requires any police protection, the respondent Police shall provide police protection on payment of charges. The organizers have to pay the necessary charges to the respondent Police for providing police protection.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 27.06.2025 ogy NCC : Yes / No.
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes / No.
6/8
To
1. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Iluppur Taluk, Iluppur, Pudukkottai District.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
4. The Tahsildar, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
5. The Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathi Police Station, Pudukkottai.
6. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karaiyur Police Station, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai.
7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy 27.06.2025 8/8