Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer … on 5 October, 2010

Madras High Court
Lakshmanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer … on 5 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 05/10/2010

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11413 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

1.Lakshmanan
2.Thangamuthu Pillai
3.P.Muthumani
4.Sethuramalingam
5.Muthiah
6.Jeyakumar
7.Kumaran
8.Jegatheeswaran
9.Panivel
10.Shamuganathan
11.Sugumaran
12.Pandi
13.Manoharan
14.Parasuraman
15.Velmurugan
16.Muthumani
17.Maisthri Palanivelu
18.Sathiyendran			... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum
  Sub Divisional Magistrate,
  Periyakulam, Theni.
2.The Inspector of Police,
  Devathanappatti,
  Periyakulam.			 ... Respondents 1 and 2/
					Complainants

3.Sangan
4.Rajaram
5.Murugesan
6.Narayanan
7.Easwaran @ Sooran
8.Murugan
9.Seemathanni @ Ramu
10.Narayanan
11.Ponnuchamy
12.Rasu
13.Maikset Ayyam Perumal
14.Senthil
15.Easwaran
16.Sooran
17.Periyasamy
18.Giri
19.Ayyam Perumal
20.Muthiah
21.Easwaran			... Respondents 3 to 21/
						B-Party.

Prayer

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to
call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent  in
M.C.No.329/2009/A4 dated 23.09.2010 and quash the same.
  		
!For Petitioners ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
^For Respondents ... Mr.L.Murugan,
		     Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
		      for R.1 and R.2
		     Mr.T.Srinivasa Raghavan
		      for R.3 to R.21.		
* * * * *

:ORDER

This petition is focussed to quash the impugned order of the first
respondent in M.C.No.329/2009/A4 dated 23.09.2010.

2. The gist and kernel of the arguments as submitted by the learned
Counsel for the petitioners would run thus:

(a) There is one temple Arulmighu Pattalamman Muthiah Swamy Thirukoil
situated at Melmangalam village, Theni District. There is a scheme formulated
by the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
(Administration) Department, Madurai, in O.A.No.8 of 1976 dated 20.08.1979,
mandating that the representatives of the people living in five streets
adjoining the said temple should administer the temple and subsequently, one
other group raised some objection and filed an application for modifying the
scheme formulated by the Deputy Commissioner which was dismissed, as against
which the appeal was filed by them before the Commissioner, H.R & C.E., who
remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the modification as
suggested by the appellant therein.

(b) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, W.P.No.8521
of 2010 was filed and in that, this Court vide order dated 03.08.2010 virtually
upheld the order of the Commissioner in remitting the matter to the Deputy
Commissioner for considering the above said modification.

(c) As against the order of the learned Single Judge, a writ appeal was
filed by the petitioners herein and obtained an order of interim stay in
M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.A.No.1913 of 2010 dated 15.09.2010.

(d) While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer of that locality invoked
Section 145 Cr.P.C., and passed the preliminary order dated 23.09.2010 calling
upon the ‘A’ party and ‘B’ party to attend the proceedings relating to the
dispute which erupted regarding the conduct of festival concerning the said
temple.

(e) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2010 passed by the first
respondent, this Criminal Original Petition has been focussed on various grounds
including the one that he had no jurisdiction in matters of this nature.

(f) The present legal position relating to the administration of the
temple is that the original scheme formulated during the year 1979 by the Deputy
Commissioner holds good and as per which only, the petitioners’ group (‘A’
party) is entitled to administer the temple and conduct the festival namely
“Purattasi Festival” on 11.10.2010, 12.10.2010 and 13.10.2010, whereas the other
party (referred to as ‘B’ party in the impugned order) which is having no right,
is trying to interfere with the administration of the temple as well as the
celebration of the said festival.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would file an additional typed
set of papers informing this Court that the same Sub Divisional Magistrate who
passed the earlier order, passed one other order under Section 144 Cr.P.C.,
prohibiting ‘A’ party and ‘B’ party from conducting any sort of festival on
11.10.2010, 12.10.2010 and 13.10.2010. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside
both the orders of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate.

4. Challenging and impugning, contradicting and refuting the averments as
set out in the petition, the learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 21 (‘B’
Party in the impugned order) would put forth and set forth his arguments, the
pith and marrow of the same would run thus:

The scheme formulated allegedly in the year 1979 is non-est in the eye of
law as it is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the law and
that was set aside legally by the appropriate authority. Because of the
contumacious conduct of ‘A’ party, the ‘B’ party was excluded from the village
itself and they have been made to live away from the village and very many
crimes were perpetrated on them, even though they are still having the right to
conduct the said festival.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 21 would place reliance on
the paragraph No.12 of the order of the Commissioner dated 19.12.2008, whereas
the learned Counsel for the petitioners/’A’ party would submit that those
observations in the said order dated 19.12.2008 was set aside by this Court in
writ proceedings. As of now, this Court is not very much concerned with those
details.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 21 would further develop
his argument that according to him, as of now, there is no scheme formulated by
any authority enuring to the benefit of the petitioners/’A’ party.

7. The above narration of facts as put forth on either side would
exemplify and demonstrate clearly the point that ‘A’ party and ‘B’ party are at
logger heads and they could not see eye to eye.

8. What I could understand from the submissions as well as from the
records, is that the festival is scheduled to be held on 11.10.2010, 12.10.2010
and 13.10.2010.

9. The core question arises as to who should conduct the festival and how
it should be conducted without creating any law and order problem. It appears
that the Sub Divisional Magistrate is very much concerned with the law and order
problem and he is not concerned with the administration of the temple while
exercising the power under Section 144 or Section 145 Cr.P.C.

10. On considering the real problem, this Court is of the view that the
festival in whatever befitting manner could be done religiously, should be
caused to be done with the help of the Commissioner to be appointed by this
Court taking into the confidence the views and suggestions of both sides and it
is for the both sides to co-operate with the Court Commissioner and see that the
festival is conducted properly and the Commissioner has to be provided with
necessary funds by the persons who are having the funds and proper accounts
should be maintained in that regard. The District Collector and the
Superintendent of Police and all other officials under them should see that they
are rendering proper assistance to the Court Commissioner to conduct the said
festival with the co-operation of both sides.

11. The name of Thiru.A.K.Kandasamy Panidan, Retd., District Judge, was
suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioners/’A’ party and I could hear
no counter proposal from the learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 21/’B’
party and hence, Thiru.A.K.Kandasamy Panidan, Retd., District Judge, is
appointed as the Court Commissioner for the above said purpose and his fees is
fixed at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) initially payable by the
petitioners/’A’ party.

12. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under
Section 145 Cr.P.C., shall stand modified. Regarding the order passed by him
under Section 144 Cr.P.C., that order shall stand good concerning law and order
subject to the exception relating to the conduct of the festival.

13. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

rsb

To

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum
Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Periyakulam, Theni.

2.The Inspector of Police,
Devathanappatti,
Periyakulam.

3.The District Collector,
Theni District.

4.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court,
Madurai.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *