IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:28.09.2006 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.28003/2006 T.A.Ranganathan ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department., Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Executive Trustee, Sri Devaraja Swamy Devasthanam, Little Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram. ... Respondents Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to conduct Sri Thoopul Vedantha Desikar Mangalasasanam on the date of Sri Koil Desikan Sathumurai this year and in the future years pursuant to the representation dated 11.7.2006. For Petitioner : Mrs.Hema Sampath For Respondents: Mr.S.Parthasarathy for the Impleading Party in SR.Nos.94005 & 96147/2006 Mr.T.Chandrasekar, Spl.GP O R D E R
This writ petition is filed for a direction against the 2nd respondent, the Executive Trustee of Sri Devaraja Swamy Devasthanam, Little Kanchipuram to conduct Sri Thoopul Vedantha Desikar Mangalasasanam in the year 2006 and also in future years pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 11.7.2006. In respect of conducting of Mangalasasanam that has been a dispute regrading the date. While the petitioner gives a date, the other devotee who is seeking himself to implead as a respondent in this writ petition gives a different date.
2.It is also brought to my notice that in respect of the year 2003, the Commissioner in a revision petition in R.P.No.84/2003 has passed orders on 03.10.2003 in respect of the same matter, after considering the dispute between the parties.
3.Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even for the year 2005, the same dispute has been raised and R.P.No.257/2005 and the same is pending before the 1st respondent and admittedly, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1st respondent has completed the hearing even as on 24.08.2006 and orders have been reserved which fact is not denied by Mr.Parthasarathy,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the other contesting parties who are seeking to implead in this writ petition.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that even though there is a dispute in respect of date, to meet the ends of justice, the 1st respondent may be directed to pass appropriate final orders in R.P.No.257/2005 in which he has reserved orders on 24.8.2006.
5.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading parties and Mr. T.Chandrasekar, learned Special Government Pleader who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents.
6.The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that it is true that the submissions were completed and the written arguments were filed which runs to many pages and therefore, the 1st respondent requires some time, even though order is reserved on 24.8.2006.
7.I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel on either side.
8. I am of the considered view that since the matter relates to the matter of public importance and the dispute regarding the worshippers relating to the date of Mangalasasanam, the 1st respondent shall be directed to pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time so as to put an end to the dispute regarding the religious matter.
9.The writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:
“The 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in R.P.No.257/2005 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
No costs. The SR.Nos.94005/2006 and 96147/2006 filed for impleading is ordered.
ap
To
1.The Commissioner,
HR & CE Administration Department.,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai 600 034.
2.The Executive Trustee,
Sri Devaraja Swamy Devasthanam,
Little Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram.
[vsant 8177]