BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/11/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.8694 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 S.Bose ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Salai Gramam Police Station, Sivagangai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District. 4.Jeevanantham ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned notice of the second respondent dated 06.09.2008, quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct Sri Valli Thirumanam Nadagam in the Sri Balarudaiya Iyyanar temple. !For Petitioner ...Mr.B.Pugalendhi ^For Respondents ...Mr.D.Sasikumar Govt.Advocate :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the
impugned notice of the second respondent dated 06.09.2008, quash the same and
consequently direct the first and second respondents to permit the petitioner to
conduct Sri Valli Thirumanam Nadagam in the Sri Balarudaiya Iyyanar temple.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.D.Sasikumar,
learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the
petitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying the
writ petition, is to the effect the petitioner wants to stage a drama viz., Sri
Valli Thirumanam in Sri Balarudaiya Iyyanar Temple, North Visavanoor Village,
Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, which he has been doing on earlier
occasions; however the police refused to grant permission to conduct the same.
Hence, this writ petition.
4. The perusal of the impugned communication dated 06.09.2008, would
reveal that due to some law and order problem, the first respondent viz., the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai refused permission and the same was
communicated by the second respondent, viz., the Inspector of Police, Salai
Gramam Police Station, Sivagangai District to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
is going to conduct only a drama and that he will also distribute food at the
relevant time to the gathering there and he would not pave the way for any law
and order problem.
6. The learned Government Advocate would highlight that several cases were
booked in the recent past also, because there had been clash between two
communities, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
more than 105 persons of that locality supported the petitioner for conducting
such a drama and for distribution of food at the temple.
7. Without in any way deciding as to the ownership over the temple or any
other right of the petitioner over the temple, I would like to issue the
following direction:
The Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and the first respondent, viz.,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai shall convene a meeting of the
petitioner and the rival group, if any, and see to it that the petitioner
conducts the drama amicably which will not in any way confer on the petitioner,
any right over the said temple.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that if any
expenditure has to be met by the petitioner for providing police protection,
then he is also ready to deposit necessary charges with the Government in this
regard. Accordingly, the matter shall be processed within a period of fifteen
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above said directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
smn
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Salai Gramam Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Ilayankudi,
Sivagangai District.