Madras High Court
The Idol Of Sri Rangaatha Swamy At ... vs The Commissioner on 10 April, 2017
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.04.2017
CAV ON :01.12.2016
DATED : 10.04.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
W.P(MD)No.552 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2010
The Idol of Sri Rangaatha Swamy at Srirangam
Through Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer,
Having his Office at Devasthanam Office Building,
Sri Rangam,
Tiruchirapalli - 620 006.
.. Petitioner
Vs
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Trichirapalli,
Promenade Road,
Trichirapalli - 620 001. .. Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
G.O.No.76, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Corporation-2)
Department, dated 25.05.2009 for the auction dated 21.01.2010 with respect to
Srirangam Division, Sl.No.2, Clause -B, dated 31.12.2009 and quash the same
and further forbearing the respondent from collecting the fee for the vehicle
entering Srirangam Temple.
!For Petitioner : M/s.K.Govindarajan
For Respondent : Mr.P.Srinivas
:ORDER
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the G.O.No.76, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Corporation-2) Department, dated 25.05.2009 for the auction dated 21.01.2010 with respect to Srirangam Division, Sl.No.2, Clause -B, dated 31.12.2009 and quash the same and further forbearing the respondent from collecting the fee for the vehicle entering Srirangam Temple.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer is representing the Idol of Sri Ranganatha Swamy at Srirangam, Devasthanam Office Building , Sri Rangam, Trichirappalli.
3. The petitioner is the legal owner of Iruwaram Minor Inam land, at Vellithirumutham Village. The lands were granted to the petitioner's deity by various rulers with both warams. The writ petitioner also states that the temple is the absolute possession and enjoyment of the lands from the date of granting the sale. The writ petitioner also states that the petitioner's right has been recognized, declared and established by the British Government and classified as Devadayam. Both warams have been declared in favour of the petitioner. The Government has also issued a title deed bearing Doc.No.1027.
4. The writ petitioner also come forward with this writ petition by saying that the temple consists of seven concentric rectangular enclosures around the sanctum and these seven enclosures are 350 feet. distant and each has four large gates with a high tower, which are placed in the middle of each side of the enclosures and the gates are guarded by temple staff. The enclosing walls (Prakara) are breached by monumental Gates(Gopurams) placed in the theory in the centre of each wall in the axis of the sancturay and facing one of the cardinal points. The main entry faces south and the temple covers a vast area of about 631.00 Sq.M (156 acres) with a perimeter of 10710 sq.ft.
5. The writ petitioner also states that the 5th inner gates Uthiraveethi contains the Shrine of Manavala Mamuni. The main entrance of the temple gate is on the southern gopuram. The entry of four wheeler vehicles is prohibited to enter through southern gate at which the main Raja Gopuram is situated. The sacred part of the temple starts from South Uthiraveethi where all ritual activities are centered. The Shoes must be removed on entering South Uthira Veethi as a sign of respect. In South Uthira Veethi Temple, car stand is provided, twice a year in January and April Deity arrives in his processional car in the midst of great throng of people. The processional car starts from South Uthira Veethi and proceeded towards west Uthiraveethi, North Uthiraveethi, East Uthiraveethi and reaches its stand at South Uthira Veethi. The writ petitioner also states that there are several festivals observed through out the entire year and taking into consideration of the width of the street, Police Department has fixed "No Parking Boards" in South Uthira Veethi except the place in which a small stand is provided for two wheelers parking by Devasthanam.
6. The Respondent/Municipal Corporation of Trichirapalli published a tender notification for issuance of license under various heads in the Divisions of Srirangam, Ponmalai, Ariyamangalam and Go-Abishekapuram. The particular of Auction License for Srirangam Division in Sl.No.2 (M) deals with collecting the entry fees on buses at Srirangam Division Bus Stand (portion of erstwhile Srirangam Municipality). The petitioner is not having any grievance over the same. In SL.No.2 (M) it deals with collection of entry fees on tourist buses/vans and collection of parking fees for vehicles at South Uthira Veethi. The petitioner's temple, by approaching this Court, has filed W.P.No.799 of 2005. Considering the case of the petitioner's temple, this Court initially granted interim order of stay for confirmation of auction dated 20.01.2005 and the said writ petition was disposed by this Court on 08.08.2007 and the following order was passed:
"Concededly the period for which the licence is to be granted for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 has expired. The finding therefore nothing survives in this writ petition the same is dismissed no cost"
7. The petitioner's temple further come forward by saying that this respondent/Municipal Corporation have no right to collect entry fee on the vehicles, which are entering into the temple area. Article 265 of Constitution of India provides that no tax shall be levied or collected by respondent, except by authority of law. Article 243 X enables the State Legislature by law to authorise a Municipality to levy or collect any tax or toll or fees on the vehicle which enters the Respondent's limits. The levy and collection of tolls, kist or fee whatever name by which it is called by respondent on all the Motor Vehicles which enter its limit, is illegal and without any authority of law. Therefore, the tender notification shows that the entire area of respondent at Srirangam Division is halting place for which notification has been issued.
8. The petitioner's temple is the owner of the site or soil over which, the public street exists. The respondent/Municipal Corporation has got only the right to collect fees for parking vehicle of South Uthira Veethi. The vesting of public street in the Municipal Corporation is for specified purposes and the Municipal Council must act with the scope of such vesting. Therefore, as the ownership of the site and soil continues with the temple, the respondent Municipal Corporation has got only the right to maintain the surface of the soil as a public street, manage and control the same. Since the strip of land between the wall of the temple and Gopuram, is having a width of 25 ft., and it is required by the temple for maintenance, there is no parking space available in South Uthira Veethi as Rest House for Devotees, Cloak (Chappals), room, parking stand for two wheelers. A toilet room constructed by Municipal Corporation are situated at South Uthira Veethi. Hence, the Municipal Corporation is bound to hand over the toilet room to Devasthanam and the petitioner is also taking steps to take over the toilet room. Further, only the temple has got right to collect parking fees for vehicles parked in its land.
9. It is the case of the writ petitioner that in the year 1957, the Srirangam Municipality attempted to construct a vegetable market in South Chitrai Street. Therefore, the petitioner temple filed a suit in O.S.No.163/1957 on the file of District Munsif, Trichirapalli for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction. The learned District Munsif Court decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. The appeal in A.S.No.237 of 1958 preferred by Municipality before Subordinate Judge, Trichirapalli, which was dismissed on 30.12.1958 and the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1168 of 1959, before this Court was also dismissed.
10. There is space available in the Uthira Veethi or in and around walls in the Seven pragaram to the respondent Corporation. In fact, without specifying a particular place or particular area for the purpose of parking vehicles, the respondent is collecting fees which is not legally sustainable and in fact, the respondent's Corporation does not have any power or authority to collect parking fee, without specifying area for the purpose of parking vehicle.
11. The respondent/Municipal Corporation, by way of auction has illegally permitted the person to collect fee from the vehicle entering Srirangam Town. Due to that act of the respondent, the devotees coming to Temple are put to great hardship and in fact, there are lot of complaints by the devotees with respect to the collection of fees. There is no parking space available to the respondent in and around the temple and collection of fee, without parking space, makes complaint against the temple.
12. In fact, as of now in the present year, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, has permitted the temple to auction the parking right for the vehicle coming in to the temple, since the temple is having space near the rampart wall which can be used as a parking space by the temple. But once again, ignoring the above orders of the Commissioner, the respondent is trying to bring the right of collecting fee for vehicle entering into the temple viz., Srirangam, which is seen by way of the paper publication in the daily News paper ?The Hindu?, dated 06.01.2010, in the proposed auction dated 21.01.2010.
13. The case of the petitioner/temple is that the respondent/Municipality Corporation does not have any power to collect fee for vehicle entering Srirangam Temple and the devotees are put to great hardship. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the respondent in G.O.No.76, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Corporation 2) Department, dated 25.05.2009 for the auction dated 21.01.2010 with effect from Srirangam Division, Sl.No.2, Clause-B, dated 31.12.2009 and quash the same and further restrained the respondent from collecting the fee for the vehicle entering into the Srirangam Temple.
14. On receipt of the notice, the respondent/Municipal Corporation has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation set out in the counter affidavit dated 29.06.2010 that originally, tender notification dated 20.01.2005 pertaining to the City Corporation comprising the Zonal Offices of Srirangam, Ariyamangalam, Ponmalai and K.Abishekapuram, which was issued for collection of entry fees on tourist buses/vans and collection of parking fees for vehicles at South Uthira Veethi, was challenged by the petitioner/temple by filing the writ petition W.P.No.799 of 2005 before this Court and interim order of stay was granted for auction dated 20.01.2005. Subsequently the above Writ Petition was disposed of ?as infructuous? by this Court on 08.08.2007.
15. The respondent/Municipal Corporation also states that the Corporation provides collection of entry fees in earmarked bus stands, markets etc., to improve the financial status of income. Further, the local body mainly depends upon revenue by way of collection of tax and non- tax, which is one of the source of revenue to any urban local body. Therefore, the Corporation is empowered for collection of entry fee at the earmarked bus stand, for which the Corporation, every year, is publishing auction notification for collection of fees with effect from 1st April.
16. The respondent also states that the notification issued only for the vehicle fee collection at Srirangam bus stand and not for collection fees for South Uthira Veethi and that, the notification so issued only relates to Srirangam Bus stand alone. As already stated above, the Corporation has never interfered with the land belongs to the Idol of Sri Ranganatha Swamy at Srirangam or any other property, which belongs to temple authorities and that, the Corporation has issued lease notification only for collection of fees, which is one of the regular income to the Urban local body and that, the corporation mainly depends upon all these revenue sources for running administration and also to provide basic amenities to the common public.
17. The Respondent/Municipal Corporation also states that having not received any notification for collection of fees in the area belongs to the petitioner's temple, notification for collection of vehicle fees in respect of the Srirangam temple bus stand is illegal.
18. The respondent also states that the main notification has been filed in the above writ petition and in fact, the items in Sl.N.2(b) pertaining to Srirangam Zonal Office relate to collection of parking fees for tourist vehicles in old Srirangam Bus Stand only and not in Uthira Veethi as mentioned by the petitioner, in respect of interim order passed in the said writ petition on 19.01.2010. In view of the interim order of stay, the said item could not be leased out, although auction was held on 21.01.2010 and the highest bid was offered and he has been permitted to take the leased out property.
19. The Respondent/Municipal Corporation also filed an additional counter affidavit stating that the averment made by the writ petitioner's temple in Sl.No.2 pertaining to collection of parking fees on vehicles at South Uthira Veethi is denied. The Auction notification dated 31.12.2009 itself clearly states in Sl.No.2 under the heading of Srirangam Zone, which reads as follows:
"2. (a) Right to collection of parking fee from the buses at bus stand, Srirangam Division (Portion of Old Bus Stand at Srirangam);
(b) Right to collection of parking fee from Tourist buses/vans excluding South thira Veethi subject to final order of the Court.
20. The Respondent/Municipal Corporation also states that petitioner temple filed O.S.No.163 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichy, in respect of the land to an extent of 10 feet from the rampart wall of petitioner's temple and the above said suit has been decreed in favour of the temple. The respondent corporation is entitled to collect parking fee from the tourist buses/vans, which are parking in Mambalasalai Road, Amma mandapam Road, Renga Nagar Road, Ragavendrapuram Road, Gandhi Road, Melur Main Road etc. Since the writ petitioner is creating dispute each and every time, the respondent is unable to regulate the parking area. Therefore, the present main notification for right to collect parking fee from tourist buses/vans excluding South Uthira Veethi, is subject to passing of final order in the writ petition.
21. The Respondent/Municipal Corporation also states that the parking areas are notified as and when the Traffic Police makes suitable arrangements for parking of vehicles subject to the requirements of the general public. With regard to Srirangam, the maximum number of visitors visit the petitioner's temple. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer is in the interest of the general public and if the relief is not granted, it will be contrary to interest and welfare of the public. The respondent is an authority that has been entrusted with the statutory duty of maintaining the City of Trichirapalli includes Srirangam Town. The writ petitioner's temple being the largest and only attraction for the visitors visiting Srirangam, cannot now say that the Corporation should provide the services and at the same time, seek to restrict the public revenue, that is statutorily due to the Corporation. The writ petitioner's temple has not provided any parking ground in the places stated in the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner has to obtain permission from the Corporation for providing parking stand which has not even been applied for till date. The respondent also states that in future, if the counsel for the respondent Corporation takes any decision to collect entry for Srirangam Town, it will be introduced, after following due process of law as per the relevant statute. Therefore, the respondent Corporation as prayed to dismiss the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.552 of 2010.
22. Heard Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.P.Srinivas learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
23. It is the case of the writ petitioner's temple that the petitioner's temple is the legal owner of the land which was granted to the Iruvaram Minor Inam land in Vellithirumutham Village. The Government granted title deed No.1027 to the petitioner's temple. The writ petitioner's temple covers a vast area of 631 Sq.m (156 acres) with a perimeter of 10710 Sq.ft.
24. When the writ petitioner is the owner of the property in respect of South Uthira Veethi, the respondent/Municipal Corporation have no right to calculate any vehicle fees for entering the vehicle at South Uthira Veethi.
25. In fact, the respondent/Municipal Corporation stating that they have issued the auction notification only in respect of Srirangam bus stand and not the South Uthira Veethi which was absolutely parking to the petitioner's temple.
26. The respondent/Municipal Corporation has no right to collect entry fee on the vehicles, which are entering into the temple area. Article 265 of the Constitution of India provides that no tax shall be levied by respondent/Municipal Corporation except by authority of law. Article 243 X enables the State Legislature by law to authorize, a Municipality to levy or collect taxes and toll. In the case of the petitioner, the respondent/Municipal Corporation have no right to collect any tax or fees on the vehicle, which enters the temple enactment.
27. In fact, the petitioner temple has filed O.S.No.163/1957 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Trichirapalli for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction restraining to put up any minor construction in the same and also for permanent injunction remove the south side gate of the defendant. The learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli has decreed the suit and directed the defendant to remove the construction put up on the petitioner's temple. Aggrieved against the said decree, the respondent has filed an appeal and the same was confirmed by the Sub Judge, Tiruchirapalli in A.S.No.237 of 1958. Against which, Second Appeal in S.A.No.1168 of 1959 is filed before this Court.
28. This Court, in the above Second Appeal, has categorically held that which is as follows:
In the absence of a specific proof the Municipality cannot take advantage of the provisions of section 188(3). Therefore, the Municipality will not be entitled to lease the plaint item for occupation to others in the absence of proof that the plaint site is a street margin vesting, in the Municipality. In the absence of such proof the contention of the defendant cannot be upheld. The Second Appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. No leave.
29. Though the writ petitioner also filed W.P.No.799 of 2005 after expiry of period ie. from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2007, the same itself is dismissed as infrucutous.
30. On a fair reading of the notification dated 31.12.2009, which is the impugned order in this writ petition, it is stated in Clause (2) (M) as follows:
"bjw;F cj;jpu tPjp eP';fyhf ePjpkd;w ,Wjp Mizf;F cl;gl;L Rw;Wyh ngUe;Jfs;- ntd;fs; epWj;jf; fl;lzk; tR{y; bra;J bfhs;Sk; chpkk;/"
31. The respondent/Municipal Corporation also in their counter affidavit categorically held stated that (Para No.8 )as follows:
The Corporation has not initiated any action for collection of fees for vehicles which are entering the temple area and no lease notification was also issued in this regard. The Corporation has issued lease notification for collection of bus fees only in respect of Srirangam Bus Stand for which provision is made available.
32. Apart from this, para no.6 of the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent is as follows:
It is further submitted that the respondent herein is not collecting any fees as an entry fees from the vehicles entering Srirangam Town. Further, there is no parking grou7nd provided by the petitioner Temple in the places stated in the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner has to obtain permission from the Corporation for providing parking stand which has not even been applied for till date. In future, if the council of this respondent takes any decision to collect entry of Srirangam Town, it will be introduced after following due process of law as per the relevant Statute.
33. When this Court gone through the entire records and the judgments of the Civil Court and by this Court in Second Appeal in S.A.No.1168 of 1950, the respondent/Municipal Corporation have no right to collect any vehicle fees on the South Uthira Veethi and right to collect only the parking fee from tourist buses/vans in South Uthira Veethi at Srirangam. When the legal right and possession and enjoyment of this writ petitioner's temple in respect of the property to the entire area of 156 acres with South Uthira Veethi is confirmed, the respondent/Municipal Corporation have no right at all to collect the vehicle fees from the tourist buses/vans in South Uthira Veethi. Since the respondent/Municipal Corporation have not come forward by producing any legal right or any documentary evidence to show that the land is in possession of South Uthira Veethi by the Respondent Municipal Corporation and they have no right or power to collect the fees on the vehicle, which is parked in the petitioner's temple.
34. It is absolutely made clear that though the area which is marked as South Uthira Veethi, belongs to the temple, since the temple is having power to collect vehicles fees from tourist buses/vans entering or parking in South Uthira Veethi, the respondent/Municipal Corporation have no right at any point of time or in future make calculation of vehicle fees on the tourist buses/vans in South Uthira Veethi in Srirangam Town. Though the temple is running in the welfare of Deities for improvement and for maintenance of the temple, it is necessary for the temple to collect the said vehicle fees on the tourist buses/vans parking at South Uthira Veethi and the respondent/Municipal Corporation have no legal right to collect the said vehicle fees in South Uthira Veethi at any point of time In the result,
(a)The writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order of notification in respect to Srirangam Division, Sl.No.2, Clause-B, dated 31.12.2009; and
(b) The Respondent/Municipal Corporation is hereby permanently restrained from entering or collecting any vehicle fees on the tourist buses/vans in the South Uthira Veethi, Srirangam Temple at Trichirapalli District at any point of time. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed..