Madras High Court
K.Sankar vs The District Collector on 10 February, 2025
W.P(MD)No.3627 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P(MD)No.3627 of 2025
K.Sankar ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai..
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
3. The Thasildhar,,
Peraiyur Taluk,
Madurai District.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Usilampatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
5. The Insepctor of Police,
Elumalai Police Station,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to directing the
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3627 of 2025
4th respondent to provide adequate police protection for installation of
Mariamman Statue to be installed at Sri Santhana Mariamman Temple
which is situated S.No. 88, A.Perumalpettai, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai
District by considering the petitioner's Joint Representation dated
20.12.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnan,
For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar
Government Advocate
For R4 & R5 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking writ of Mandamus to direct fourth respondent to provide police protection for installation of Mariamman Statue at Sri Santhana Mariamman Temple in S.No. 88, A.Perumalpettai, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.
2.According to the petitioner, he is the present committee member of Sri Santhana Mariamman Temple. He used to conduct festival in the first Tuesday of Panguni Month in every tamil calender month. During 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3627 of 2025 the festival, they used to offer Vel to the God and all functions will be started early morning to night. The private parties have land in and around the temple. Elders of the petitioner worshiped the temple by treating a Neem Tree as deity and now the villagers decided to construct a temple by collecting donation from the general public and also installed sculpture of Mari Amman statue and also decided to conduct Kumbabishekam. While so, some village people obstructed to install the statue during Kumbabhishekam and therefore, on 05.09.2024, a peace meeting was conducted and decided to allow the villagers to conduct Kumbabhishekam and install the statue. When the villagers attempted to install the statue, some villagers had obstructed to install the same. Therefore, they gave a representation before the police and thereafter, decided to conduct peace meeting on 07.02.2025. The said temple is not a listed temple. Most of the villagers supported to install the statue but some people obstructed. Therefore, they sent a representation to install the statue to the police but they failed to consider the same. Hence this petition has been filed.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that already peace meeting was conducted and 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3627 of 2025 decided to conduct Kumbabhishekam by the village people. No amicable settlement was arrived at to install the statue. Therefore, in the peace meeting dated 05.09.2024, it is decided to conduct Kumbabhishekam as conducted in the previous occasions and the statue has to be installed after getting opinions from the villagers and the statue has to be kept in the place where it was already kept and thereafter, again based on the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2025, a peace meeting was conducted and there was a difference of opinion to install the statue in the temple and the opposite party have not attended the peace meeting and there are two writ petitions filed before the High Court in W.P(MD)Nos.SR10802 and SR11299 of 2025. Therefore, they have to act in accordance with the order to be passed by the High Court. While so, after conducting kumbabhishekam, now the petitioner wants to install the statue. He further submitted that the respondent police will complete the enquiry on the petitioner's representation within ten days.
4.Since there is a dispute between the parties in respect of installing statue, both the parties can arrived at a settlement. Till such time, status-quo should be maintained by both the parties. However, since the fifth respondent has not disposed of the petitioner's 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3627 of 2025 representation, dated 20.12.2024, it is appropriate to direct the fifth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of ten days from the date of this order. Accordingly, the fifth respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 20.12.2024, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of ten days from the date of this order.
5.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
10.02.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
LR
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.3627 of 2025
To
1. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai..
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
3. The Thasildhar,,
Peraiyur Taluk,
Madurai District.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.
5. The Insepctor of Police, Elumalai Police Station, Madurai District.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3627 of 2025 P.DHANABAL, J.
LR W.P(MD)No.3627 of 2025 10.02.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis