K. Ganapathi, v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 22.02.2017 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH Writ Petition (MD)No.3526 of 2013 K.Ganapathi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, No.119, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 036.

3.Thirumalaisamy 4.Chellakumar 5.Shanmugasundaram 6.Aandivel ... Respondents Prayer :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 6 for conducting Katta Panchayat and inflicting social boycott upon the petitioner and the petitioner's family members and to restore the Petitioner's hereditary right of performing Poojas in his village temples.

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Shaji Chellan For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Alagathevan Special Government Pleader For R3 to R6 : Mr.D.Venkatesan

O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 6 for conducting Katta Panchayat and inflicting social boycott upon the petitioner and the petitioner's family members and to restore the Petitioner's hereditary right of performing Poojas in his village temples.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is to restore his right to perform Poojas in the Village Temple. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Andipandaram Community and has been performing Poojas in Sarkarai Vinayagar Temple, Kaliamman Temple, Thurkaiamman Temple, Bagavathayamman Temple, Muniappan Temple and Manthaipidari Temple. The petitioner urges that the respondents 3 to 6 had prevented him from conducting Poojas in the Village Temple.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 on the other hand has denied the petitioner's allegations and stated that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open to him to approach the civil Court.

4. The petitioner has also given a representation dated 12.01.2013 to the respondents 1 and 2 ventilating his grievances. I do not see any impediment on the part of the respondents to consider the representation, after giving due opportunity to both the parties. Whatever grievance the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 to 6 may have in this regard, can be put forth before the first respondent.

5. In view of the same, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a fresh application ventilating his grievance to the first respondent and on receipt of the same, the first respondent shall consider it on its own merits and pass orders after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 to 6 and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above direction, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, No.119, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 036.

+1 cc tO M/R.D.VENKATESH, Advocate, SR.No.10563 +1 cc to M/R.L.SHAJI CHELLAN, Advocate, SR.NO:9887 +1 cc to SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.NO:10091 AKV SVA/BS/16.03.2017/2P/6C W.P.(MD).No.3526 of 2013 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22.02.2017