Bavani Santhanam v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P.Crl.(MD)No.497 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD) No.134 of 2025

1. Bavani Santhanam

2. Sivakumar ... Petitioners Vs 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

4.The Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station, Dindigul District.

5.Senthil Kumar

6. Muthaiah 1/6

7. Anandha Prakash

8. Prem Kumar

9. Pushpa Raja

10. Karupaiah

11. S.Saravanan

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioners village people to conduct the temple festival of Sri Kaliamman, Sri Mariyamman, and Sri Selva Vinayagar situated at Molapadiyur Village from 15.07.2025 to 17.07.2025 with police protection by considering the petitioner's representation dated 06.07.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkatesan For R1 to R2 : Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader For R3 & R4 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor For R5 to R11 : Mr.B.Senthil Kumar

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to permit the villagers of Molapadiyur to conduct the temple festival of Sri Kaliamman, Sri Mariyamman and Sri Selva 2/6

Vinayagar Temples at Molapadiyur Village, Dindigul District, from 15.07.2025 to 17.07.2025, with police protection.

2. The petitioner is a resident of Molapadiyur Village. According to him, the said temples were established by the villagers, and he, as a Poojari, had organised and administered the affairs of the temples for nearly twenty years, including constructing the temples. Thereafter, the administration was handed over to the 6th respondent.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 6th respondent is now preventing him from conducting the festival. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking permission and Police protection for conducting the festival from 15.07.2025 to 17.07.2025.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 11 would submit that the 6th respondent is the hereditary Poojari of the temples and has been performing pooja regularly. It is further submitted that the festival had already been conducted on 05.06.2025 and 06.06.2025. Since the petitioner, owing to his personal differences with the 6th 3/6

respondent, did not participate in the festival, he has now filed this Writ Petition seeking separate permission to conduct another festival. Further, he has no objection to the petitioner participating in the temple festival, but there can be only one festival for the temple.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that there are two groups in the village. The petitioner's group chose not to participate in the festival, which was held on 05.06.2025 and 06.06.2025.

6. Considering the rival submissions, this Court, by order dated 29.07.2025, referred the matter to mediation and appointed an experienced Mediator. The Mediator has filed a report stating that despite his efforts, no amicable solution could be arrived at. According to the Mediator, while the respondents have no objection to the petitioner conducting a separate festival, they insisted that the 6th respondent should not act as Poojari. On the other hand, the petitioner insisted that he alone must perform as Poojari during the festival.

4/6

7. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records.

8. It is evident that there exists a dispute regarding the poosariship of the said temple. The festival for the temples has already been conducted on 05.06.2025 and 06.06.2025. The petitioner and his group, by choice, did not participate in the said festival. Since the resondent Nos.5 to 11 have no objection to the petitioner participating in the festival in future, if the petitioner claims any right of poosariship, it is open to him to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Since the festival has already been conducted and the petitioner now seeks to conduct a separate festival, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 29.07.2025 Index:Yes Internet:Yes Indu 5/6

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

Indu To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

4.The Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station, Dindigul District.

Order made in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.497 of 2025 29.07.2025 6/6