BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 11/12/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.13101 of 2009 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 G.Murugesan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director General of Police, Beach Rod, Chennai-4. 3.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai-1. 4.The Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station, Madurai. 5.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 6.Pappammal .. Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent No.5 from interfering in Petitioner's religious practice in Arulmigu Thalaiyari Gurunathan Temple situated at T.S.No.442, South Masi Veethi, Madurai, who is holding kangaroo Courts within a period prescribed by this Hon'ble Court and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For Respondents ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy Special Government Pleader * * * * * :ORDER
Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the
respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus, to
forbear the 5th respondent from interfering in the petitioner’s religious
practice, in Arulmigu Thalaiyari Gurunathan Temple, situated at T.S.No.442,
South Masi Veethi, Madurai.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is managing the Arulmigu Thalaiyari Gurunathan Temple, situated at
T.S.No.442, South Masi Veethi, Madurai. The 6th respondent has been claiming
certain rights, in respect of the administration of the said temple, stating
that she is the third wife of the previous administrator of the temple, namely,
Gurunathapillai, who had died without male issues. In the year, 2004, the 6th
respondent had attempted to disturb the administration of the temple and
therefore, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate
cum the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. Based on the complaint made by the
petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, had initiated proceedings,
under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in M.C.No.116 of 2004, dated
18.09.2004. After a detailed enquiry had been held it was found that the temple
was founded by the forefathers of the petitioner and that the petitioner is
controlling the administration of the temple and performing the pooja. While
so, the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Madurai, in O.A.No.16 of 2008, had passed an order, dated
12.02.2009, stating that the temple belongs to Vadivelpillai and therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to any right in the administration of the temple.
4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Joint Commissioner Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai, the petitioner had
preferred a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.229 of 2009.
By an order passed, on 02.03.2009, this Court had set aside the order passed by
the Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and
had remitted the matter back to him to pass appropriate orders, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the other contesting parties.
While the said proceedings are pending, the 6th respondent has again attempted
to interfere in the administration of the temple by the petitioner. The 6th
respondent had also lodged a complaint before the 5th respondent. Based on the
said complaint the 5th respondent is harassing the petitioner by asking him to
allow the 6th respondent to take possession of the temple. In such
circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before
this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Mr.Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on
behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 had submitted that based on the complaint
lodged by the 6th respondent, the petitioner had been requested to appear before
the 5th respondent, for an enquiry, along with the necessary documents.
Thereafter, the 6th respondent is making further investigations in the matter.
He had also submitted that the petitioner is not being harassed by the 5th
respondent, in any manner. It is only in regard to the case based on the
complaint lodged by the 6th respondent, certain enquires are being made.
Thereafter, the 5th respondent had asked the contesting parties, including the
petitioner, as well as the 6th respondent, to approach the appropriate forum to
establish their rights in the manner known to law.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned Special Government
Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5, since no further orders
are necessary, the writ petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
cs
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Home Secretary,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Beach Rod, Chennai-4.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai-1.
4.The Inspector of Police,
South Gate Police Station,
Madurai.
5.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai.