V. Palanichamy v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI V.Palanichamy ... Petitioner versus State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nerkuppai Police Station, A.Thekkur Village, Sivagangai District.
... Respondent 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 proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.09/V1PS/Proceedings/2025 dated 23.07.2025 and quash the same and subsequently, direct the respondent to provide police protection on 03.08.2025 for conducting the "Theertham and Annadhanam" pooja festival in Shree Arulmigu Ranganathar Temple in A.Thekkur Village, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kanagarajan For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.R.Anandha Raj 1/6
ORDER
The petitioner has made a request to the respondent Police for providing Annadhanam in Shree Arulmigu Ranganathar Temple situated in A.Thekkur Village, Sivagangai District, during Aadi Perukku, i.e.on 03.08.2025. The request of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent Police, by referring to the objections raised by some of the community people, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
09/V1PS/Proceedings/2025 dated 23.07.2025. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, learned counsel Mr.Anandha Raj, representing other community people of devotees of Shree Arulmigu Ranganathar Temple, submits that the petitioner, by providing Annadhanam, is attempting to create a record that he is the administrator of the Temple.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that since there are two groups in the village, they have rejected the request of the petitioner in order to avoid law and order problem.
2/6
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is providing Annadhanam every year. By providing Annadhanam, the petitioner is not claiming any right or title over the Temple Administration. He further submits that Aadi Perukku is an auspicious day and the petitioner also made arrangements for providing Annadhanam to the people on that day and the purpose of Anndhanam would be served if it is peformed in the Temple alone.
5. This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the impugned order.
6. The petitioner's request for providing Annadhanam during Aadi Perukku has been rejected by the respondent Police by referring to the objections made by other community people of devotees of Shree Arulmigu Ranganathar Temple. The only grievance of the other community people is that by providing Annadhanam, the petitioner may claim right over the temple and the same has been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, there cannot be any impediment for the petitioner to provide Annadhanam. In the event, if other community people, who are 3/6
objecting for Annadhanam, are intending to provide Annadhanam, it is always open to them to provide Annadhanam in the Temple.
7. The respondent Police is not justified in rejecting the request for providing Annadhanam. The Police Department is established to ensure law and order. Law and order cannot be maintained by rejecting these type of requests for providing Annadhanam.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.09/V1PS/Proceedings/2025 dated 23.07.2025 is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be permitted to provide Annadhanam in Shree Arulmigu Ranganathar Temple on 03.08.2025. No costs.
01.08.2025 ogy NCC : Yes / No.
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes / No.
Note: Issue order copy today.
4/6
To
1. The Inspector of Police, Nerkuppai Police Station, A.Thekkur Village, Sivagangai District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy 01.08.2025 6/6