Madras High Court
N.Karuppaiah vs S.Sivakumar on 29 July, 2022
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD).Nos.6662 and 6666 of 2022
N.Karuppaiah ... Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Sivakumar
2.The Tahsildar,
Devakottai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Muthumariamman Thirukovil,
Srirangapuram, Arunagiripattiinam,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
4. The Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Chennai. ... Respondents
[R4 is suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court,
dated 29.07.2022 passed in W.A(MD)No.782 of 2022]
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Section 151 C.P.C, against the order
dated 07.07.2022 in W.P(MD).No.14425 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Dhilip Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Madhavan for R1
Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
for RR2 and 4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P(MD).No.14425 of 2022 on 07.07.2022.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this writ appeal, are as follows:
The appellant and the first respondent herein belong to the same village, namely, Arunagirippattanam, Sri Rangapuram, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District. The appellant belongs to Aghamudaiyar Community and the first respondent belongs to Illathu Pillaimar Community.2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022
3. It is admitted that a temple, namely, Arulmigu Muthumariamman Thirukovil is in the said village which is listed under Section 46(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The temple is an ancient temple and the villagers mostly consist of two communities, namely, Aghamudaiyar Community and Illathu Pillaimar Community. There are more families of Illathu Pillaimar Community compared to Aghamudaiyar Community. A scheme of administration in respect of the said temple was framed by the Deputy Commissioner, HR and CE Department, under Section 64(1) of the Act, in O.A.No.11 of 1981 dated 25.03.1981. As per the Scheme, the trustees are selected in the ratio of 3:2 from among the said two communities. There was subsequently a modification of the scheme, by which, the selection of Trustees in the ratio of 3:2 from among the said two communities in turn system was removed and the Trustees have to select five number of members from the said two communities. Still, there was a dispute with regard to taking Sakthi Karagam.
3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022
4. It is now admitted before this Court that one of the major festivals in the temple is Aadi Festival and the festival is conducted for 10 days in a grand manner jointly by both the communities. There was a customary practice of selecting a person from among the desired participants from both the communities by drawing lot for taking Sakthi Karagam.
5. It is the case of the appellant that the names of the desired participants will be written in individual papers/bit sheets which will be rolled and placed in plate by the poojari of the temple in front of the Goddess Muthumari Amman. Thereafter, a young child, who was available there at the pooja time, will be asked to pick up one of the rolled sheets from plate in the presence of the public belonging to both the communities. The name of the person in the said manner would be regarded and respected as the incarnation of Goddess. The said person alone will be entitled to take Sakthi Karagam in all the ten days of Aadi festival. However, there appeared to be some difference of opinion in the matter of selection of Karaga Samiyadi in the year 2015, which led to the formation of Peace Committee by the Revenue Authorities. 4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022
6. It is admitted that the appellant filed applications in O.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2016 by arraying the representatives of Illathu Pillaimar Community as respondents. Similarly, another application in O.A.No.5 of 2016 was also filed under Section 63(e) of the Act by the first respondent/writ petitioner. A separate order was passed in O.A.No.4 of 2016 and a common order was passed in O.A.Nos.3 and 5 of 2016. In O.A.No.4 of 2016 on 02.12.2021 , the Joint Commissioner has passed the following order:
"7/ xt;bthU Mz;Lk; eilbgWk; Mo khj rf;jp fufk; vLg;g[ jpUtpHhtpd;nghJ ,U jug;gpypUe;Jk; jpUt[sr; rPlL ; FYf;fy; Kiwapdg; o rf;jp fufk; vLg;nghiu njh;t[ bra;jpLk; eilKiwapy;. xU Fwpgg; pl;l egh; kl;Lnk mt;tha;g;gpidg; bgWk; tifapy; elj;jg;gl;L tUfpwJ/ ,e;epfH;tpYk;. ,U rKjha kf;fs; (g[s;spjhuh;fs;) mog;gilapy; gpujpepjpjJ ; tk; tH';f ntz;oaJ mtrpakhfpwJ/ mjd;go. Kjy; ,uz;L Mz;LfSf;F mjpf vz;zpf;ifapy; cs;s ,y;yj;Jg; gps;iskhh; rK:fj;jpypUe;J Mz;Lf;F xUtUk;. mLj;J tUk; xU Mz;ow;F Fiwe;j mstpy; vz;zpf;ifapy; cs;s mfKilahh; rK:fj;jpypUe;J xUtUk; me;je;j rKjha g[ss ; pfspilna jpUt[sr;rPlL ; K:yk; FYf;fy; elj;jp Fwpgg; pl;l 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022 egiu njh;eb; jLj;J Mo khj jpUtpHhtpy; rf;jp fufk; vLf;Fk; gzpapid nkw;bfhs;s ntz;Lk;/ ,e;eilKiwahdJ RHw;rp Kiwapy; gpd;gw;wg;gl ntz;Lk;."
7. Similarly, as against the similar order passed in O.A.Nos.3 and 5 of 2016 recognizing the manner in which the performance of Poojas and the practice to be followed at the time of festival, an appeal is pending in A.P.No.7 of 2022. The Commissioner of HR and CE Department has granted an order of status quo on 06.04.2022 in A.P.No.7 of 2022. Though the appeal filed by the appellant in A.P.No.8/2022/D2 as against the common order passed in O.A.Nos.3 and 5 of 2016 was dismissed on technical ground, another appeal in A.P.No.118 of 2022 is still pending before the Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Chennai. The order of the Joint Commissioner with regard to the performance of Sakthi Karagam is under challenge. This Court is also convinced that an order of status quo passed by the Commissioner of HR and CE would mean that the practice that was in vogue or that was being followed should continue till the appeal is decided.
6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022
8. In such circumstances, the first respondent herein has filed a writ petition in W.P(MD).No.14425 of 2022 for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the Executive Officer to take immediate steps to follow the procedures followed in previous years as per the order of the Joint Commissioner, HR and CE, Sivagangai, to conduct the Aadi Thiruvizha-2022 of Arulmigu Muthumariamman Thirukovil at Srirangapuram. It is noticed from the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD).No.14425 of 2022 that the writ petitioner as well as the Executive Officer projected before the learned Single Bench, the common order that was passed in the applications filed before the Joint Commissioner, suppressing the fact that an order of status quo has been obtained by the appellant before the Joint Commissioner. It is to be noted that the first respondent and the Executive Officer have misled this Court by projecting a case, on the basis of the common order passed by the Joint Commissioner, without bringing it to the notice of the learned Single Bench, about the legal implication of the order granted by the Commissioner to maintain status quo. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court is extracted hereunder:
"7.In view of the same, the Tahsildar, Devakottai, is directed to convene a peace committee meeting on 7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022 15.07.2022 and to ensure that peace and tranquility are maintained as well the right which has been declared by the competent Court as on date to be followed unless there are any other restrictions from the competent Court. The Deputy Superintendent of Police is directed to provide adequate police force for smooth conduct of the temple festival without any disturbance ."
9. It is now admitted before this Court that the Tahsildar has passed an order on 23.07.2022 in the following lines:
".,e;epiyapy; jpU/rptf;Fkhh; vd;gth; (,y;yj;Jg;gps;iskhh;) jug;gpy; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiufpisapy; tHf;F vz; W.P(MD).No.14425 of 2022 d; go tHf;F bjhlh;e;jjpy; 07/07/2022 ehspll; jPhg; ;g[iuapy;
In view of the same, the Tahsildar, Devakottai, is directed to convene a peace committee meeting on 15.07.2022 and to ensure that peace and tranquility are maintained as well the right which has been declared by the competent Court as on date to be followed unless there are any other restrictions from the competent Court. The Deputy Superintendent of Police is directed to provide adequate police force for smooth conduct of the temple festival without any disturbance ."8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022 nkw;go ePjpkd;w cj;jutpd; mog;gilapy; nkw;go jPUtpHh bjhlh;ghf 16/07/2022 md;W njtnfhl;il tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; njtnfhl;il tl;lhl;rpah; jiyikapy; rkhjhdf; Tl;lk; elj;jg;gl;ljpy; mfKilahh; jug;gpdh; nkw;go jpUtpHh bjhlh;ghf nky;KiwaPL bra;Js;sjhf bjhptpj;J nkw;go rkhjhdf; Tl;l cld;gof;ifapy; ifbahg;gkplhky; brd;W tpl;ldh;/ ,e;epiyapy; nkw;go kDjhuh;fshy; AP.No.7/2022 vd;w vz;zpy; brd;id ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiw Mizah;
Kd;g[ ,e;j rka mwf;bfhilfs; rl;lk; 1959 gphptp 60-1 d; fPH; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l nky;KiwaPl;L kD 06/04/2022 md;W tprhuizf;F tug;bgw;w nghJ Maintain Status Quo vd bjhptpf;fl;gl;L epYitapy; ,Ue;J tUfpwJ nkw;gJ Maintain Status Quo vd;gJ epht; hfj;jpl;lj;ij khw;wp mikf;f ghpfhuk; ntz;o jhf;fy; bra;ag;l;l nky;KiwaPlL ; kDtpy; ,ilf;fhy Vw;ghlhf Mizauhy; gpw;gpf;fg;gl;ljhFk Maintain Status Quo vd;gjw;F Vw;fdnt epht; fpj;J tuf;Toa bray; mYtyUk; jf;fhUk; epht; hfk; bra;J tuntz;Lk; vd;gnj bghUshFk;/ rf;jp fufk; vLg;gJ bjhlh;ghf Vw;fdnt O.A.No.3 of 2016 kw;Wk; 5-2016 Mfpa kDf;fspy; ,iz Mizauhy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l bghJ cj;jut[ eilKiwapy; cs;sjhYk; mjid vjph;jJ ; Mizah; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; vt;tpj ,ilf;fhy jila[k; tH';fg;glhjjhy; ,e;j Mz;L Moj;jpUtpHhtpy; rf;jp fufk; vLg;gjw;F nkw;go ,iz 9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022 Mizah; cj;jutpid gpd;gw;Wtjpy; rl;l hPjpahf ve;j jila[k; ,y;iy vd ghh;it 2 y; fz;Ls;s ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiw muR tHf;fw/.hpd; rl;lf;fUj;Jiuapy; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ ,e;neh;tpy; jpUtpHhtpd; Kf;fpa epfH;thf rf;jp fufk; vLg;gtiu jpUt[sr;rPl;L Kiwapy; njh;e;bjLf;Fk; epfH;t[ ,iz Mizahpd; 3-2016 kw;Wk; 5/2016 Mfpa vz;fspy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l bghJ cj;jutpd; go bray; mYtyh; kw;Wk; tUtha;jJ ; iwapdh; kw;Wk; njtnfhl;il fhty; Jiz fz;fhzpg;ghsh; Kd;dpiyapy; jpUf;nfhtpy; tshfj;jpy; ,y;yj;Jg;gps;iskhh; rK:fj;jhuhy; elj;jg;gl;L mth;fs; rK:fj;jpdUf;F xUth; rf;jp fufk; vLf;Fk; eguhf njh;e;bjLf;fg;gl;Ls;shh; vd ghh;it 3 ,y; fz;Ls;s bray; mYtyhpd; fojj;jpy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
Vdnt ,e;j rka mwepiyaj;Jiw muR tHf;fwp/// hpd;
rl;lf;fUj;Jiuapd; goa[k.; rptf';if ,e;J rka mwpepiyaj;Jiw Mizah; kw;Wk; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiu fpis cj;jutpd; goa[k;. rptf';if ,iz Mizah; cj;jut[ vz; 3-2016 kw;Wk; 5-2016 jPh;g;gpd; goa[k;. nkw;go cj;jutpwF ; jil Vjk; ,y;yhjjhy; ,y;yj;Jg;gps;iskhh; jug;gpy; ,uz;L Mz;LfSf;F jpUtpHhtpy; rf;jp fufk; vLg;gJ vdt[k.; K:d;whk; Mz;L mfKilahh; jug;gpy; jpUtpHhtpy; rf;jp fufk; vLj;J jpUtpHh elj;JtJ vdt[k;. rl;lk; xG';F gpur;rid VJk; ,d;wp ,U jug;gpdUk; jpUtpHh bfhz;lhl ,jd; Kyk; 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022 bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ."
10. The contention of the appellant is that the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court is unsustainable without hearing the appellant, who is impleaded as third respondent in the writ petition. Without issuing notice to the appellant herein and without hearing him before passing final order, the learned Judge has given a direction which is in fact ignoring the legal implication of the order of the status quo granted by the Commissioner of HR and CE Department. The Tahsildar is required to decide the manner in which the festival should be conducted by ensuring the right which has been declared by the Statutory Authority. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has indirectly tilted the balance in favour of Writ Petitioner by directing the Tahsildar to pass orders ignoring the order of status quo granted by the Commissioner in the Appeal.
11. Since the dispute between the appellant and the first respondent with regard to the administration and for taking Sakthi Karagam during Aadi Festival, is pending now in appeal and there is an order of status quo Commissioner, this Court is of the view that the 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022 practice that was being followed before the applications were filed, should be followed. All the parties have admitted before this Court that the mode by which the person to take Sakthi Karagam before the orders were passed by the Joint Commissioner, is not in dispute. The practice that was in vogue and being followed by the members of both the Communities is by writing the names of five persons from the two different communities in a plain sheet and drawing a lot to select one member to perform and take Sakthi Karagam. Hence, pursuant to the order of the status quo granted by the Commissioner, this practice should be continued till the final decision is taken by the Commissioner in the appeals that are pending before the Commissioner. In such circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Bench cannot be sustained and the directions of the learned Single Bench to convene the Peace Committee Meeting to take a decision on his own, cannot be sustained. The decision pursuant to the said meeting cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.14425 of 2022, is set aside. The consequential order passed by Tahsildar falls to the ground. It is to be noted that the Tahsildar in his order interpreted the order of status quo as one relating to framing of scheme ignoring the order in O.A.No.4 of 2018. 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022
12. From the peculiar facts of this case and the development, this Court is of the view that some arrangements in the interest of both is required as the festival for this year has already commenced. Therefore, the festival for this year can be celebrated/ conducted jointly by both the Communities as it was being done all along. With regard to Sakthi Karagam, there shall be a drawing of lot by putting the names of two members belonging to the appellant Community and three members from the first respondent Community. Thereafter, the person whose name is taken by drawing lot among the five members shall take Sakthi Karagam, and this arrangement is only for this year.
13. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the people of the appellant's community have some apprehensions regarding the present Executive Officer as she has taken a stand which is not neutral. The learned Counsel pointed out that the Executive Officer has not brought to the notice of this Court as well as the legal implications of the order of status quo granted by the Commissioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the Executive Officer submitted that the third respondent is always neutral and she may be given a fair 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022 opportunity before making any adverse remarks. It may be open to the appellant to give a representation to the Commissioner in this regard and the Commissioner may look into it and may pass appropriate orders.
14. Considering the fact that the appeal in A.P.Nos.118 and 7 of 2022 is pending before the Commissioner, this Court suo motu impleads the Commissioner of HR and CE Department, Chennai, as fourth respondent. The Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Chennai, is directed to dispose of the appeals pending before him in A.P.Nos.118 and 7 of 2022, after hearing of the parties and giving adequate opportunity as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. With these directions, this Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
29.07.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ssb
Note:Issue Order Copy on 01.08.2022
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022
To
1.The Tahsildar,
Devakottai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Muthumariamman Thirukovil,
Srirangapuram, Arunagiripattiinam,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
3. The Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Chennai.
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
ssb
ORDER MADE IN
W.A(MD).No.782 of 2022
29.07.2022
16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis