I.Bangaraju v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI I.Bangaraju ... Petitioner v.
1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.
4.The Tahsildar, Karambakudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Karambakudi Police Station, Pudukottai District.
6.Anthonisamy, S/o.Soosai 1/6
7.Anthonisamy, S/o.Sebastian 8.Bangaraj 9.Savarinayagam 10.Thomas 11.Saamiraj ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to enquire the social boycott of the petitioner and the petitioner's family members at Kulappanpatti Village, Pallavarayanpathai Post, Karambakudi Taluk, Pudukottai District, on the instigation of the respondents 6 to 11. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rooban For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, Government Advocate for R.1 to R.5 No appearance for R.6 to R.11 ***** 2/6
ORDER
The petitioner, a native of Kulappanpatti Village, Karambakudi Taluk, Pudukottai District, belonging to Christian faith, has filed this writ petition that the respondents 6 to 11 are not permitting him to offer his prayers in St.Adaikala Matha and St.Anthony Church at Kulappanpatti and also not permitting him to offer Goat sacrifice in memory of the constructions of the Church.
2.Learned Government Advocate, on instructions received from the fourth respondent / Tahsildar, submitted that the petitioner, a native of Kulappanpatti village, has shifted his residence to Alangudi village twenty years back and has also refused to pay the taxes collected by the Church. Therefore, he was not permitted by the Church Administrators. He further submitted that the petitioner has also insisted for some first honour for him and also insisted for producing the accounts and therefore, there was some dispute among the Church Administrators and the petitioner. The report of the Tahsildar further reads that if the petitioner pays the due taxes to the Church, 3/6
the Administrators are not having any problem in permitting the petitioner to offer prayers in the Church.
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Administrators of the Church have transferred the properties of the Church in their names, for which, he has lodged a complaint. Therefore, the Administrators are preventing the petitioner from offering his prayers in the Church. 4.Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised such an allegation, there is no averment in this regard in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. Though the respondents 6 to 11 have been served, there is no representation on their behalf.
5.Under such circumstances and considering the submissions of the fourth respondent / Tahsildar, this writ petition stands disposed of that this petitioner can offer his prayers in the Church on payment of due taxes, however, he need not insist for any special honour / privilege. In the event if the petitioner is still prevented from offering his prayers, it is always open to 4/6
him to lodge a complaint before the concerned Tahsildar as well as before the concerned Inspector of Police. If any such complaint is lodged, the same has to be duly enquired into and action has to be taken as against the persons responsible.
Index :
Yes / No 14.06.2023 NCC :
Yes / No gk To 1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.
4.The Tahsildar, Karambakudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Karambakudi Police Station, Pudukottai District.
5/6
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk 14.06.2023 6/6