Madras High Court
Vadakalai Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2010
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 16.04.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P. NO. 30898 OF 2008
AND
M.P. NOS. 1 & 2 OF 2008
Vadakalai Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya
Sabha, Kanchipuram, rep. by its
Secretary, L.Ravi
45-A, Sannathi Street
Kanchipuram 3. .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dept.
Chennai 600 034.
2. The Executive Trustee/Assistant Commissioner
Arulmighu Devarajaswamy Thirukkoil
Kanchipuram.
3. Perumal Koil Thennacharya Dharsana
Sabha, rep. by its Secretary
61/51, North Mada Street
Kanchipuram.
4. Thathadesika Thiruvamsasthar Sabha
by its Secretary
35, Sannathi Street
Kanchipuram. .. Respondents
Writ petition filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in R.P. No.11/2007, quash the order passed by the 1st respondent in R.P. No.11/2007 dated 23.12.2008 and forbear the 2nd respondent from implementing the order of the 1st respondent dated 23.12.2008 passed in R.P. No.11 of 2007.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Parthasarathy, SC, for
Mr. J.Ramakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr. V.T.Gopalan, SC, for
Ms. S.Radha Gopalan for R-3
Mr. T.Chandrasekar, Spl. GP for RR-1 & 2
No Appearance for R-4
ORDER
This is yet another round of litigation between the two sects of Vaishnavites Vadakalai and Thenkalai. An interesting question of religious importance has arisen whether the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal is entitled to visit his shrine on the 'Revathy' star day also?
3. Before proceeding into the messy issue, it is vital to know the background of this case so as to reach a fair conclusion on the issue.
A festival by name 'Pagalpathu' and 'Rapathu' is being celebrated for 10 days in the Arulmigu Devarajaswami Thirukkoil in Kanchipuram. The first 10 days prior to 'Vaikunda Ekadesi' is called 'Pagalpathu' and the next 10 days starting from 'Vaikunda Ekadesi' is called 'Rapathu' and the entire festival, namely, 'Pagalpathu' and 'Rapathu' is collectively called 'Adhyayana Uthsavam'. The method of celebrating Pagalpathu and Rapathu has been explained by the HR & CE Board in its proceedings concluded in O.A. No.332/1941.
According to the petitioner, who belongs to Vadakalai community, the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal is entitled to visit his shrine on the day of his Thirunakshatram, i.e., monthly star 'Moolam'. On the other hand, the case of 'Tenkalai' community is that the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal can be taken out to his shrine on the 'Revathy' star day, which is opposed by the 'Vadakalai' community.
4. Mr.R.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Baktha Vigraha of any Alwar and Acharya should not be taken out on a day other than the day on which the birth star of the respective Alwars and Acharyas fall and if the star 'Moolam' is intervening during the said period of Pagalpathu festival, which is the star of Sri Manavala Mamunigal, the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal will be taken down to its shrine and after completion of the rituals, the said Vigraha will be brought back to the Moolasthanam of Sri Devaraja Swami on the same day itself. The same practice has been in vogue from time immemorial till 1941 and after 1941, at the instigation of the Tenkalai community, the Executive Trustee of Arulmigu Devarajaswami Thirukoil and its Maniakarar are trying to take out the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal on the day of the Revathy star contrary to the well established customs that was followed for about ages and, unfortunately, the Commissioner of HR & CE has modified the long standing religious customs and usage that was followed for several decades. Therefore, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S. No.139/2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram, seeking an injunction to restrain the respondents, namely, the Executive Trustee and Maniakarar of Arulmigu Devarajaswami Tirukoil and P.V.S. Sampath from in any way taking the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal every year to its the shrine during the Pagalpathu festival on any other day other than the monthly star of Moolam, more particularly on the Revathy monthly star.
The learned Sub Judge, having seen the chequered history behind the prayer made by the parties to the suit, came to the conclusion by issuing a direction to the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee of Arulmigu Devaraja Swami Thirukkoil for necessary relief in the light of the direction given by the Commissioner in his order dated 3rd Nov., 2006.
5. Pursuant to the order passed by the Sub Court relegating the parties to approach the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee, the parties approached the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee. As per the directions issued by the learned Sub Judge, Kanchipuram, the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee passed an order directing that no festival is to be conducted on the Revathy star day. After the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee prohibiting festivals on Revathy star day, in the year 2004-2005, the 3rd respondent, Perumal Koil Thennacharya Dharsana represented by its Secretary, did not agitate over the same.
6. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner went before the Sub Court at Kanchipuram seeking an order for perfect implementation of the orders of the HR & CE Board passed in O.A. No.332/1941, which was also subsequently approved by the decree of the Sub Court, Chengalpet in A.S. No.147/1946. The temple authorities had not allowed any such festival on Revathy star day during the earlier years and that the said order became final, more particularly, when the same was not even challenged, the Sub Court, Kanchipuram, ought not to have relegated the parties to approach the HR & CE Department and the HR & CE Department, as against the order passed in O.A. No.332/1941 as confirmed in A.S. No.147/1946, has completely ignored the abovesaid orders by allowing the festival of taking out the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal from the Moolasthanam during Pagalpathu festival. The order passed by the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, reversing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.P. No.11/07 dated 23rd Dec., 2008, consequently, forbore the 2nd respondent from implementing the order of the 1st respondent dated 23rd Dec., 2008, passed in R.P. No.11/07.
7. Mr.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel, while assailing the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of HR & CE, forcibly urged that the impugned order is liable to be struck down for the reason that the Commissioner has miserably failed to appreciate the religious customs and usage being followed by devotees of both Vadakalai and Tenkalai community in celebrating the Pagalpathu festival in the Arulmigu Devarajaswami Thirukkoil without any interruption for several decades. Even though there were orders passed by the HR & CE Board in O.A. No.332/1941, the 4th respondent, has not even shown minimum respect to the order passed by the HR & CE Board in O.A. No.332/1941, which was also subsequently confirmed by the competent appellate court in A.S. No.147/1946 and also his own orders in R.P. Nos.84/03, 257/05 and 69511/06. Therefore, learned senior counsel contended that the present impugned order has to go as it is a complete violation of the earlier order passed by the HR & CE Board, as mentioned above.
Further, learned senior counsel contended that pursuant to the direction given by the Sub Court, the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee perfectly passed the order in complete compliance of the order passed by the Board in O.A. No.332/1941 as confirmed by the appellate court in A.S. No.147/1946. When the said order was challenged by the 3rd respondent herein by filing a review petition, R.P. No.11/07, the Commissioner of HR & CE, while exercising a limited power vested u/s 121 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, has completely forgotten that there was no infirmity or violation of any provision of law or statute in the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner travelled beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction by reversing not only the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, but also the order passed by the HR & CE Board in O.A. No.332/1941. Furthermore, the Commissioner, HR & CE has gone one step further to reverse the civil court judgment passed in A.S. No.147/1946. Such approach of the Commissioner, HR & CE is totally unwarranted as he has sat in appeal against the order passed by the HR & CE Board and also the judgment passed by the appellate court in A.S. No.147/1946.
Finally, Mr.Parthasarathy, submitted that the 1st respondent, after being directed by the Sub Court, Kanchipuram, to decide the issue by keeping in mind the order passed in O.A. No.332/1941 as confirmed in A.S. No.147/1946, has no power at all to unsettle the orders passed by the Board in O.A. No.332/1941 and also the judicial order passed by the appellate court in A.S. No.147/1946, by way of an executive order and, on that basis, prayed for quashing the impugned order passed in R.P. No.11/07.
8. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that taking the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal on the Revathy star day during the Pagalpathu festival is not contrary to the Board's order passed in O.A. No.332/1941, as several festivals, which are not covered by the Board's order have been allowed to be performed even without any objection from any quarter. Further, in his submission, he contended that the Commissioner has specifically ordered that the festival to be performed in the temple as per the customs and usage prior to the order passed by the Commissioner in R.P. No.84/03, shall continue to be performed. Whileso, the Board's order passed in O.A. No.332/1941 dated 3rd Feb., 1941, does not even mention as to how the Revathy star festival has to be performed. Therefore, the same was overruled by the then Executive Trustee by its order dated 24th Nov., 1953 and, thereafter, a civil suit in O.S. No.139/06 filed by the Vadagalai Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya Sabha seeking an order of injunction to restrain the Executive Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Arulmigu Devarajaswami Thirukkoil from conducting Revathy star festival was a collusive suit, barred by Section 108 of the HR & CE Act and in the said suit no order of injunction was passed. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner in R.P. No.11/07 D2 cannot be found fault with. The issue settled in the Board's order in O.A. No.332/1941 dated 3rd Feb., 1942, is only the procedure to be followed in taking out the procession of the deities of Alwars and Acharyas, including Sri Manavala Mamunigal, particularly on the days of their respective Thirunakshatram for Sathumurai. The Board's order does not mention about any Thirunakshatram (birth star) other than that of Alwars and Acharyas. Even Revathy is the birth star of Sri Ranganatha Perumal, the deity, which is commonly worshipped by both Vadakalai and Tenkalai sects of Vaishnavaites and the same is also an admitted fact by both sides. The granite image of Lord Ranganatha Perumal has been installed in the sanctum sanctorum of Sri Manavala Mamunigal and such installation has not come under any protest. Though it was not consecrated, it is revered by all devotees as an idol of worship, since it is installed in the sanctum sanctorum of Sri Manavala Mamunigal.
From the year 1953, at the request of the Tenkalai Vaishnavaites, there has been a customary practice of carrying the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal from the Hill abode to the sanctum sanctorum where the idol of Lord Ranganatha Perumal has been installed during the Pagalpathu festival in the Tamil month of 'Margazhi' on the day on which the Revathy Nakshatram falls. Since this practice was continued without any interruption till the year 2003, for about 50 years, from the year 1953, Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned senior counsel pleaded that the deity of Sri Manavala Mamunigal should be allowed to be taken in procession on the Revathy Nakshatram day to the shrine of Lord Ranganatha Perumal. Mr.Chandrasekar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the HR & CE Department also repeated the reasoning given by the Commissioner in the impugned order in support of his contentions.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
10. Since the petitioner, who is Vadakalai sect, sought for a prayer to implement the order passed by the Board in O.A. No.332/1941 as affirmed in A.S. No.147/1946, let me see what was the order passed by the Board in O.A. No.332/1941 and what was the subject matter of appeal in A.S. No.147/1946 and its ultimate conclusion for the purpose of answering the question raised in the present writ petition.
11. Prima facie, the religious practice to take the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal in procession during Pagalpathu and Rapathu festival has got a chequered history, emerging from 1820 onwards. The case records indicate that the trustees, who are Vadakalais, have been adopting an attitude of hostility to the Tenkalais and their saints ever since it was decided that the Tenkalai Mandram should be recited in the temple and it is the custom of the temple to celebrate Sathumurai festival of Alwars and Acharyas on the annual Thirunakshatram day of the saints and the Rapathu and Pagalpathu festivals during the first 10 days prior to Vaikunda Ekadesi and the 10 days succeeding Vaikunda Ekadesi. There was a specific grievance that the trustees have been committing breaches to trust by not celebrating the Sathumurai of Sri Manavala Mamunigal, a Tenkalai Guru and saint and also other Alwars and Acharyas, except those favoured by them out of sectarian prejudices. One of the earliest documents, which was shown as Ex.M dated 14th Dec., 1990, indicate that there was an expenditure of Rs.7/- for each Acharya for doing Sathumurai for the four Acharyas, which indicates that Sri Manavala Mamunigal was also given the same honour as given to Sri Vedanta Desikar, while doing Sathumurai like Neivedyam, Parivattam, garlands, etc. In 1828, a suit was filed in O.S. No.231/1828 by the Vadakalais against the Archakas on the ground that they were interfering with the recital of Tamil Prabandham on the Vijayadhasami day in the Devarajaswami Temple. In the above said plaint, Exs.N of the year 1852 indicates that there were some expenses incurred for doing Sathumurai for Sri Manavala Mamunigal shrine, which shows that according to the usage, the temple followed Sathumurai, i.e., fulfilling certain usual poojas for the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal.
Again the documents filed in O.S. No.120/1852 on the file of the Mufti Sadr Amin Court also indicates that there appears to have been very many quarrels between the Vadakalai and Tenkalai sects in respect of performing Sathumurai on the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal in his shrine. A decree came to be passed in the above suit, which indicates that the Tenkalai sect was entitled to perform archaka paricharkra miras in the Manavala Mamunigal shrine. Another piece of exhibit, Exs.1, 1-A and 1-B relating to O.S. No.858/1861 filed on the file of the Addl. District Munsif, Kanchipuram, viz., Ex.1, Plaint in the suit, Ex.1-A, written statement and Ex.1-B is the judgment therein, also indicate that about the year 1850 or earlier, the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal had disappeared from the very temple itself. Subsequently, it was recovered from the temple's Pothamarai tank. After tracing out the idol of Sri Manavala Mamunigal, it was attempted to be installed, but there was huge objection raised to its installation. As per the prayer made in the above said suit, one truth came out that the idol disappeared for 8 years and 5 months, because one of the prayers made in the suit was to the effect that the Tenkalai sect made a prayer by claiming installation expenses and emoluments due to them for the previous 8 years and 5 months. However, the Court decreed that the Utsavar idol mentioned in the plaint was the old idol of Sri Manavala Mamunigal, but the other prayers made by the Tenkalai sect were rejected. This does not give answer to the present writ petition as to whether the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal is entitled to the honour of visiting his own shrine during the Pagalpathu and Rapathu festival celebrated by the Devarajaswami Temple.
12. To find out a better picture, let me further proceed to find out what are the other documents available on record to answer the prayer in the present writ petition. In para-8 of the judgment in the suit filed in O.S. No.858/1861, Ex.D-3 dated 16th Feb., 1876, the Court stated that the Tenkalais intended to carry the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal in procession through the streets unaccompanied by Devarajaswami, but the Court found that Sri Manavala Mamunigal had no street procession and that the plaintiffs had no right to institute new procession without the consent of the trustees. The said judgment was appealed against in A.S. No.124/1876 in the District Court, Chengalpet and the appellate court held that Sri Manavala Mamunigal had no right of any procession independent to the principal deity and, finally, the suit for damages for loss sustained by stopping of the Samprokshana procession was rightly dismissed.
The next document is Ex.III dated 24th Nov., 1880, which contains an application filed by the Tenkalai u/s 20 of Act XX of 1863 for sanction to file a suit against the Vadakalai trustees. One of the allegations made in the application was that the trustees refused to bring Devarajaswami to Sri Manavala Mamunigal shrine on the latter's Sathumurai day, but the District Judge rejected the said application. These two documents indicate that Sri Manavala Mamunigal was not enjoying public procession. After the decision in O.S. No.858/1861 refusing permission for the deity of Sri Manavala Mamunigal to be taken in procession, the parties resorted to reliefs before the criminal courts. Three old orders passed by the Court of Magistrate in the year 1880, 1881 and 1882, marked as Exs.III-a, III-b and III-c respectively require a careful perusal by this Court. Ex.III-a is an order passed by the 2nd Class Magistrate, Kancipuram, instructing the police to prevent the Tenkalais from taking Sri Manavala Mamunigal in procession even inside its shrine. Ex.III-b is an order of the Joint Magistrate of Chengalpet, directing the Tenkalai sect to have their rights established in a civil court, otherwise to give six months notice to Vadakalai sect indicating their intention to take out a procession so as to given an opportunity to the Vadakalai sect prohibiting the procession. Ex.III-c is a similar order on an application made by the Vadakalai sect for preventing the Tenkalai for taking out Sri Manavala Mamunigal in procession.
13. Again, being unsuccessful in the criminal courts, once again the Tenkalai Archakas filed civil suit in O.S. No.208/1883 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur. Subsequently, the same was transferred to Chengalpet and renumbered as O.S. No.105/1884. The plaint in O.S. No.105/1884 was marked as Ex.C-2. Two reliefs were prayed for, namely, (i) the right of procession, etc., of Sri Manavala Mamunigal and (ii) the procession of Sri Devarajaswami. It was claimed that Sri Manavala Mamunigal had the right of Alwar Pradakshinam procession during the first 9 days of the Sathumurai festival, but the suit was dismissed. It however reserved to the plaintiff the right to sue against obstruction of any festival of Sri Manavala Mamunigal, which does not involve an independent procession of the idol. Aggrieved by that, the Tenkalai sect unsuccessfully filed an appeal in the District Court, but the same was also dismissed. Yet again, unsuccessfully a second appeal also came to be filed in the High Court in S.A. No.1200/1887 and once again further attempt was made for getting review of the judgment and the same also proved unsuccessful. All these piece of evidence clinchingly provide one fact clearly that the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal was not given the honour of procession during the annual Tirunakshatram festival. Another litigation started in O.S. No.744/1887 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kanchipuram filed by the trustees for a declaration that they, as the Dharmakarthas were entitled to superintendence of Sri Manavala Mamunigal shrine and of all the ceremonies, including Thirunakshatram, that the defendants, as archakas were not entitled to act independently and to carry the idol in procession in the Prakaram or outside it. Learned Munsif Court decreed that the trustees of the mentioned temple were entitled to the management and superintendence of Sri Manavala Mamunigal shrine subject to 2 to 6 defendants right to worship the idol in the said shrine and to conduct all ceremonies and festivals in the said shrine, including the annual Thirunakshatram and also granted an injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 6 from carrying the idol of Sri Manavala Mamunigal in procession outside its shrine, i.e., either in the Prakaram of the Devarajaswami Temple or outside the said Prakaram during the annual Thirunakshatram festival or at any other time. Aggrieved by the said decree passed by the District Munsif, the Tenkalai sect filed appeal in A.S. No.190/1900 and the Vadakalai sect also filed appeal in A.S. No.190/1900 in the District Court, Chengalpet. The appellate court modified the lower court's decree by deleting the injunction in regard to the procession. The Tenkalai sect also filed second appeal in S.A. Nos.137 and 138/1902 in this High Court and the trustees also filed S.A. No.269/1902. When these appeals came up for hearing, the learned Judges passed an order calling for a finding from the District Court in the suit relating to procession. Following the direction given by this Court, the District Court, after detailed enquiry, written its finding.
14. 14. By taking into account all the historical background, the Board in O.A. No.332/1941 had given its findings that between 1892 and 1897 and in the year 1915 and 1925 there were procession for Sri Manavala Mamunigal in the Alwar Pradakshinam. Besides they came to a final conclusion that the Tenkalai sect have a right to claim that the customary usage, as found in Ex.H should be directed to be followed by the trustees. In Ex.H, Mr.Swaminatha Iyer, the District Judge of Chengalpet, gave a finding, which was also approved by the High Court in favour of Tenkalai and on that basis, the Board reached a final conclusion that the Alwars and Acharyas, including Sri Manavala Mamunigal shall be taken in procession to Devaraja's shrine on the first day of Pagalpathu and shall remain there for 10 days. Should the Thirunakshatram of any Alwar or Acharya fall on any day during the period of Pagalpathu, the said Alwar or Acharya shall be taken to its own shrine in the morning of his Thirunakshatram day and back to Devaraja's shrine in the evening. All the Alwars and Acharyas, including Sri Manavala Mamunigal, shall be taken in procession through the Kottagai Mandapam and back to their shrine after receiving honours on all the 10 days of the Rapathu festival. Admittedly, the same was also confirmed by the appellate court in A.S. No.147/1946.
15. From the above background, it would be evident that initially the petitioner approached the civil court by filing a suit in O.S. No.139/06 seeking to implement the order passed by the Board of HR & CE in O.A. No.332/1941, as confirmed by the appellate court in A.S. No.147/1946. The sub court, having noticed the importance of the prayer made by the parties, noted the order passed by the Commissioner in R.P. No.257/05 D2, which is given as follows :-
In page 16 of the Order, the Commissioner has observed as follows:
In case, any party is aggrieved in the manner of performance of Sathumurais and festivals other than fixing the dates of the Sathumurai of the festival, they can make a suitable representation to the Executive Trustee/Assistant Commissioner of the above temple. From the above passage, it is clear that the relief sought for by the petitioner would come under the purview of Manner of Performance of Satrumurais and Festivals. It seems that the Learned Commissioner has not recorded any finding to the effect that the vikraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal can be taken out from the Moolasthanam on the Revathy Nakshathram day for receiving Honours. This court is of the view that it is not the proper stage to interpret the order of the Hindu Religious Endowment Board in O.A. 332/1941 and the order passed in R.P. No.257/2005 D2 and other orders produced by the plaintiff and 5th defendant and at the stage the court is not supposed to sit over the said orders and give interpretation without having conducted a full fledged trial. The festival starts on 28.12.2006. Therefore, this court deems it fit and proper to direct the plaintiff to approach and make the representation to the Assistant Commissioner-Executive Trustee of the 1st defendant temple for necessary relief.......
The sub court was well aware of the long established religious customs, usage and rituals followed by the devotees of both Vadakalai and Tenkalai sects, while celebrating Pagalpathu and Rapathu festival in Arulmigu Devarajaswami Thirukkoil. The order passed by the sub court, Kanchipuram, is crystal clear leaving no room for raising any doubt by any one of the parties, since the sub court has directed the parties to approach the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee and by further directing the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee to pass order keeping in mind the Board's order passed in O.A. No.332/1941 and the earlier order passed in Na.Ka. No.6/2004 dated 28th Dec., 2004, with further direction that Na.Ka. No.6/05 dated 8th Dec., 2005 and other orders passed by the competent authorities to be produced by the parties before the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee. It is pertinent to mention that none of the parties to this writ petition objected to the said order. Neither the petitioner nor the 3rd respondent herein challenged the said order. By accepting the order passed by the sub court, the parties approached the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee, who also, keeping in mind the settled religious customs being followed for decades by both Vadakalai and Tenkalai sects in celebrating the Pagalpathu and Rapathu festival in the said temple, has passed the order dated 22nd Dec., 2006. The Sub Court, Kanchipuram, while directing the present writ petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee, a direction was given not only to the petitioner, but also to the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee to pass appropriate order keeping in mind the order passed by the Board in O.A. No.332/1941 dated 3rd Feb., 1942.
16. For a more clear understanding of the case, it would be beneficial to consider the order of the Board of HR & CE passed in O.A. No.332/1941. It is better to reproduce the concluding portion of para-14 and 15 of the Board's order, as extracted hereunder :-
14. In the result, we direct that the following procedure should be observed by the trustees as set out in para 18 of the finding in Exhibit H.
1. On the evening of Sathumurai day of all Alwars and Achariars, including Manavalamahamuni when there are Ubhayakara, Sri Devarajaswami should be brought to the shrine of the Alwar Achariar concerned, after Sathumurai at the said shrine the Alwar Achariar shall be taken in procession through the prakarams with Sri Devarajaswami to the latter's shrine as for as the foot of the hill and back to his shrine after Devaraja is taken to his abode. This shall be the procedure in case there should be Ubhayakara forthcoming. If there are no Ubhayakara the Alwar or Achariar including Manavalamahamuni will be taken in procession alone on the morning of the Sathumurai day to Devaraja's shrine and back to his own shrine after receiving honours.
15. The Alwars and Achariars including Manavalamahamuni shall be taken in procession to Devaraja's shrine on the 1st day of the Pagalpathu and shall remain there for 10 days. Should the Tirunakshatram of any Alwar or Achariar fall on any day during the period of Pagalpathu the said Alwar or Achariar shall be taken to his own shrine in the morning of his Tirunakshatram day and back to Devaraja's shrine in the evening. All the Alwars and Achariar including Manavalamahamuni shall be taken in procession to the Kottagai mantapam and back to their shrines after receiving honours, on all the 10 nights of the Rapathu festival.
17. I have seen the prayer of Vadakalai sect in their representation made to the Commissioner of HR & CE dated 23rd Feb., 2007, requesting the Commissioner to direct the Executive Trustee to permit Sri Senai Mudaliar, who is the seniormost Acharya for participating in the Pagalpathu-Rapathu festival along with other Alwars and Acharyas. In the said application, though the Vadakalai sect has agreed that the sathumurai festival (birth star celebration of Alwars and Acharyas) is accepted to be done in the evening if there is a Ubhayakarar to bear the cost of the festival, and in the event of no Ubhayakarar to undertake the expenses of the festival, then the sathumurai festival should be done in the morning. This is how a scheme has been framed for conducting the Pagalpathu and Rapathu festival. When the said practice was challenged in the civil court, the same has become final in A.S. No.147/1946 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpet. Therefore, from the year 1946, by virtue of the order of the Sub Court in A.S. No.147/1946, the Devarajaswami Temple administration has introduced sathumurai festival (birth day festival of Alwars and Acharyas) over a period of years.
18. This Court has considered the case of Vadakalai and Tenkalai sects. The case of Vadakalai sect, namely, the petitioner herein, is that the order passed by the Board in O.A. No.332/1941 as confirmed in A.S. No.147/1946 has to be implemented. There is no difficulty for giving a direction to implement the Board's order as affirmed by the Appellate Court in A.S. No.147/1946. But, the Board in its order passed in O.A. No.332/1941 conspicuously and vividly mentions one thing beyond doubt i.e., as to how the sathumurai festival should be performed to the Alwars and Acharyas, including Sri Manavala Mamunigal on Tirunakshatram day during the Pagalpathu festival. But, nowhere in the Board's order it is mentioned that the Tenkalai deity of Sri Manavala Mamunigal should not be taken on the Revathi Nakshatram day.
19. While deciding the revision petition, R.P. No.84/03 for fixing the date and time of birthday festival of Sri Manavala Mamunigal, the Executive Trustee had occasion to rely upon the order passed in O.A. No.332/1941 as affirmed in A.S. No.147/1946 and the said order has been religiously followed by fixing the festival in the evening with the help of Ubhayakarar and if there is no Ubhayakarar, in the morning.
While the matter stands thus, it is an admitted fact that the celebration of sathumurai festival of all Alwars and Acharyas during Pagalpathu and Rapathu festival is not fixed permanently either in the morning or in the evening. This timing is fixed subject to the availability of Ubhayakarar coming forward to meet the festival expenses.
20. However, another important facet of the case is that the Vadakalai sect also wanted to introduce a new birthday festival of one more Alwar Sri Senai Mudaliar, who is considered as the seniormost Acharya, for participating in the Pagalpathu and Rapathu festival alongwith other Alwars and Acharyas. Admittedly, till 2007, the Executive Trustee has not permitted the Vadakalai sect people to celebrate the sathumurai festival for Sri Senai Mudaliar. The request made by the Vadakalai sect in their application dated 23rd Feb., 2007, laid to the Commissioner of HR & CE, admittedly reveals that even a new thing could be introduced according to the Vadakalai sect and this was also accepted by the Commissioner in his proceeding in RC No.69511/06/D4 dated 13th April, 2007, wherein the Commissioner of HR & CE has stated that when the birth star of Alwars and Acharyas fall during the performance of festivals like Maha Navami, Vijaya Dasami parivettai, Aadi Garudan, Bharani Deepam, Karthigai Deepam, Thai Floating festival, Vaikasi Visakam, sathumurais are performed based on the custom and usage, convenience of the temple administration and option of the Ubhayakarar. In the very same order, the Commissioner has further made it clear that while celebrating the sathumurai festival of Alwars and Acharyas, including Manavala Mamunigal during Pagalpathu and Rapathu festival in the Sri Devarajaswami temple, the intention of the orders issued in R.P. No.257/05 is not to deviate from the orders in O.A. No.332/1941 as confirmed in A.S. No.147/1946, which indicates that the orders passed by the Court in O.A. No.332/1941 for the performance of sathumurai either in the evening if there are Ubhayakarar or in the morning if there are no Ubhayakarar should be followed scrupulously. While the Board's order in O.A. No.332/1941 as affirmed in A.S. No.147/1946 was directed to be followed, the Commissioner in the same order has further made it clear that the participation of the idol of Sri Senai Mudaliar appears to be a new introduction in the performance of Pagalpathu and Rapathu festival. So such thing cannot be considered and decided during such administrative enquiry, but the participation of the idol of Sri Senai Mudaliar should be decided only by filing appropriate petition under the provisions of the HR & CE Act. The fact that Vadakalai sect were directed to seek remedy before the appropriate authority under the provisions of the HR & CE Act further indicates that even any new introduction, including the participation of idol of Sri Senai Mudaliar could also be considered along with other Alwars and Acharyas.
21. Therefore, it is not a straight jacket formula, even according to the Vadakalai sect, that what was directed by the Board in O.A. No.332/1941 as confirmed in A.S. No.147/1946 should be the final decision, but depending upon the necessity and needs, the practice of introducing new festival was also accepted even by the Vadakalai sect. Whileso, the Executive Trustees, while celebrating the Pagalpathu festival, it was so felt necessary by the Executive Trustees to have the practice of taking the idol of Sri Manavala Mamunigal and Sri Desikar to their respective shrines on their Thirunakshatram day has been in existence before and after the judgment of the Board in O.A. No.332/1941. When such a practice was continued, after the resolution by the trustees in 1953 and upto 2003, the Executive Trustee decided to allow the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal to be brought back to his shrine so as to pay respects to Lord Ranganatha, on the Thirunakshatram day of Lord Ranganatha, which fell on Revathi nakshatram day. When the Executive Trustees allowed the Alwars and Acharyas to celebrate the sathumurai festivals on their Thirunakshatram day during Pagalpathu and Rapathu festival days, it was felt necessary that the deity of Sri Manavala Mamunigal has to be brought to his shrine even on the Revathi day, which is the Thirunakshatram day of Lord Ranganatha so as to pay respects to Lord Ranganatha since the Vigraha of Lord Ranganatha is installed in the shrine of Sri Manavala Mamunigal. When the chief deity, Lord Ranganatha, which is installed in the shrine of Sri Manavala Mamunigal is given some special poojas on his Thirunakshatram day, namely, Revathi, the presence of Sri Manavala Mamunigal at his shrine during the special pooja to Lord Ranganatha would be of utmost necessity and, therefore, bringing of Baktha Vigraja of Sri Manavala Mamunigal to his shrine on Revathi Nakshatram day, according to me, will not amount to deviating from the Board's order. Without the presence of Sri Manavala Mamunigal in his shrine when special poojas are performed to Lord Ranganatha on Revathi Nakshatram day, such practice would not amount to conferring full honour on Lord Ranganatha. Therefore, the practice of taking the deities of Sri Manavala Mamunigal or Desikar on Revathi or Anusham nakshatram or Iyarpa on sathumurai days to their respective shrines has been followed for many decades. As rightly observed by the Commissioner of HR & CE in the impugned order, the order of the Commissioner in R.P. No.84/03 and R.P. No.257/05 were misinterpreted by the Executive Trustees and this practice has been stopped since the year 2004. Therefore, the practice of taking the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal on the Revathi Thirunakshatram day to his shrine during Pagalpathu and Rapathu festival only to give full honour to Lord Ranganatha, who is also installed in the shrine of Sri Manavala Mamunigal, cannot be stopped under the guise that it is against the direction given in O.A. No.332/1941, which is neither religiously acceptable nor legally sustainable in law.
22. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi religion covers the whole gamut of life in this country. The Bhagavad Gita, Bible, Quran, etc., recommended devotion (Bhakti). As described in the Gita, it pre-supposes the recognition of a personal God, who confers his grace on the devotee however lowly he may be when he surrenders himself and unreservedly to Him.
Justice A.S.P.Iyer, in his treatise on Gita says:
If Rama, Krishna, Zoraster, Jesus, and Prophet Mohammed had met in one place, they would have hugged each other with tears of joy, since all of them were full of love and believed firmly in the brotherhood of man and the Fatherhood of the God.
He again asks:
When pinched, both a Hindu and a Muslim are pained; when tickled, both of them are provoked to laughter; Then, what is the difference between them?
One can add that God has not kept the body temperature of a Hindu at 1000f and a Muslim at 980f He has kept it at 980f for the entire humanity. Even the RBC count and other contents of chemicals and hormonic substances are kept at the exactly same level for the entire humanity! In His creation, all are equals. Man unnecessarily fights with his neighbour on differences in labels which he and his neighbour have put on themselves. It is a pity! It is a tragedy! The great Religious leaders of the world, born in any country, belonging to any religion never preached hatred, never directed the husbands to beat their wives or advised one to ill-treat another. All of them preached the very same Truth. The underlying philosophy, the real philosophy preached by all of them was Love and Love only.
Herry Thomas says in his book on the Great Religious Leaders of the world.:
All the great religions agree that love call it sympathy or friendship, if you prefer is the joyous call of comrade to comrade upon man's universal journey to the Divine. All men are brothers, because God is the Father of Love. It is as simple as all that and as profound. For love is light; light is wisdom; wisdom is power; power is life; life is beauty; beauty is harmony; harmony is love. And this love-in-all-things and all-things-in-love is, God.
Lord Buddha, at one stage of the spiritual development spoke thus with a feeling of despondency.
How can it be that, the creator make a world and keep it miserable. Since if He is all-powerful, but He leaves it so, He is not good, and if not powerful, He is not God. However, when descended on Him, Lord Buddha saw that misery in man was his own creation. This basic religious tenets taught by Lord Ranganatha and his Alwars and Acharyas including Manavala Mamunigal have been forgotten by the devotees, namely, the petitioners and the respondents.
Sri Aurobindo in his contribution to humanity conveyed his message that the man is not final product of evolution and that man would soon evolve further into God. In another three hundred to four hundred years, Sri Aurobindo had predicted that, a new species will be evolving out of man. This new species will be far superior to man. That entity would have a body of light. Once one is born as a human being one has to take rebirth only as a human being or a higher being and has to go still higher. Man will never be reborn as an animal. In fact, birth after birth, man will only improve till he is fully divinized and becomes God!.
If this is the religious message, fighting between Vadakalai and Thenkalai sect going on infinitely since 1820 till now in Sri Devaraja temple, Kancheepuram, only for taking in procession, the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manaval Mamunigal to his own shrine during the Pagalpathu festival on the Revathy day, does not reflect healthy religious harmony between the two sects belonging to Vaisnavaites who are jointly worshipping Lord Ranganatha.
A true devotee looks at a man irrespective of his religion, like he looks at a cow or a cat or an elephant with the same eyes. The same true devotee has to overcome anger and hatred by seeing God in everything and everywhere. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner by allowing the Baktha Vigraha of Manavala Mamunigal to go in procession from Lord Ranganatha shrine to his own shrine and coming back in the same evening has to further continue to promote communal harmony between the two sects worshipping Lord Ranganatha in Devarajaswami temple, Kanchipuram, cannot be found fault with.
23. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Commissioner permitting the Tenkalai sect to carry the Baktha Vigraha of Sri Manavala Mamunigal to his own shrine during Pagalpathu festival on the ground that the same procession is found to be in existence for the 50 years cannot be stopped by this Court.
Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner of HR & CE in R.P. No.11/07. In the above circumstances, there being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. But there shall be no order as to costs.
16.04.2010
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
GLN
To
1. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dept.
Chennai 600 034.
2. The Executive Trustee/Assistant Commissioner
Arulmighu Devarajaswamy Thirukkoil
Kanchipuram.
T.RAJA, J.
GLN
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
W.P. NO.30898 OF 2008
Pronounced on
16.04.2010