Madras High Court
Rangarajan Narasimhan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 August, 2022
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan, P.D. Audikesavalu
WP No. 2587 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 2587 of 2017
Rangarajan Narasimhan .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Department of Tamil Development Culture, Religious Endowments
& Information
Secretariat, Fort St.George
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department
Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam
Chennai – 600 039
3. The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer
Shri Ranganatha Swamy Temple
Srirangam
4. The Board of Trustees
Shri Ranganatha Swamy Temple
Srirangam .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to
remove the barricades in the 2nd Prakara, also referred to as Rajamahendran
Thiruchutru of the Shri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam and make it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/22
WP No. 2587 of 2017
available for Sri Vaishnavas and Vishnu devotees visiting the said temple to
do Prathakshina.
For Petitioner : Mr. Rangarajan Narasimhan
Petitioner-in-Person
For Respondents : Mr. NRR. Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader (HR&CE)
for R1 & R2
Mr. R. Bharanidaran for R3 & R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) Heard the petitioner as party-in-person and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents and also perused the materials placed before this Court.
2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to remove the barricades in the 2nd Prakara, also referred to as Rajamahendran Thiruchutru of Shri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam and make it available for the devotees visiting the said temple to do Prathakshina.
3.At the outset, a short preface about the subject temple as described by historians, needs to be stated, to understand the significance of the issue involved herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 3.1. Srirangam Ranganathar Swamy Temple, dedicated to Lord Vishnu, was constructed in the Tamil style of architecture glorified in the Thiviya Pirabandham, the early medieval Tamil literature of the Alvars. Two separate steams of Kaveri river, garlands the temple which is surrounded by seven rectangular enclosures, one within the other and there are 21 gopurams, leading into these various enclosures. The architectural portion of the temple begins with the fourth court, the outer wall of which is massive height. Within the courtyard, there are two interesting structures, one is the Hall of a thousand carved granite pillars arranged in rows and another is 'Horse Court' which contains rows of pillars carved as furiously rearing horses. Such significant and monstrous architecture made in those early days, portray the ability of the sculptors.
3.2. Apart from that, a wide open courtyard known as 'prakaram' was left all around and within the prakaram, there are chiefly pillared halls and subsidiary shrines. After some time, a still higher enclosing wall was added, leaving another appreciably larger prakaram all around. Within the said enclosure, two important structures are there, one is a hall of thousand pillars and the other is a tank for ceremonial bathing lined with steps and surrounded by pillared corridors. Four gopurams lead into this prakaram and each set of gopurams is larger than the previous prakaram. The entrance gopurams were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 introduced into the southern temple scheme, which have become the most striking feature in the temple architecture of the south. Srirangam is an outstanding model, which has reached the stage of a temple-town and that is the reason, it is about to be enlisted as World Heritage Site.
4.According to the petitioner, in all Vaishnava temples, the second Prakara is available for all devotees to do Prathakshina as it is considered as a mark of respect as well as holy to do so as per the religious beliefs of all hindus. However, after conducting Maha Samprokshanam on 18.11.2015, the Executive Officer of the subject temple had blocked the entry into the second Prakara named as Rajamahendran Thiruchutru in honour of King Rajamahendran who ruled between 1058 and 1062 A.D., and contributed immensely for the development of the temple during his reign. The petitioner further averred that Rajamahendran Thiruchutru has immense importance from religious perspectives of Sri Vaishnavas and the devotees believe that to go just around in Prakara itself, will bring great glories to them, even if they are unable to have a dharsan of Sri Ranganatha Swamy. The Prakara is in use by the devotees of Lord Ranganathar to do Prathakshina from time immemorial. Hence, the petitioner made repeated representations, requesting the respondent authorities to bring to their notice the religious importance of permitting the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 hindus to have access to do Prathakshina in the second Prakara of the temple as well as the rights of a hindu as conferred by the Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947. But, the second respondent did not take any steps to ensure that the second enclosure is available for devotees to do Prathakshina. Finding no response on the said representations, the petitioner is before this court with the present writ petition.
5.In the additional affidavit, the petitioner stated that the 2nd Prakara of Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple continues to be a zone not available to the common general public, violating the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 (in short, ‘the TNTEA Act’). For better appreciation, Rule 9 of the TNTEA Act is extracted below:
“Rule 9: No executive authority of a temple shall be entitled to introduce innovations concerning the time, place or mode of worship in the temple which might prejudicially affect the rights and facilities which worshippers had generally exercised in respect of those matters before passing of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947.” Further, according to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has violated Rules 3(a), 3(c) and 4 of the TNTEA Act by situating the office of the HR & CE Dept. inside the temple premises, permitting the foreigners and people belonging to other religion to come in attire that is not customary to the temple, etc. On days of importance and holidays, the third respondent has made it virtually impossible for those, who are poor and has charged the devotees huge sums of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 rupees for entry, which is in violation of Article 15 of the constitution. The interference of the third respondent in the religious affairs of the temple is also evident from the letter of Sthalathars and Theerthakaras of Shri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam dated 13.04.2018. The additional affidavit also proceeds to state about the various lapses on the part of the third respondent in discharging his duties in the subject temple. In this regard, the petitioner made several complaints to the second respondent, which have gone unheard. On the other hand, the third respondent restrained the petitioner from entering into the temple and therefore, the petitioner prayed to this court to issue appropriate direction to the respondent authorities in this connection.
6.Upon notice, the second respondent filed an affidavit admitting that the Executive Officer of the temple should not interfere with the religious affairs of the temple in general, but the interference with the religious affairs would arise only if it is against public policy and against the established customs and usage of the temple. With respect to the issue involved in the writ petition, it is stated therein that the 2nd prakara is located between the inner wall and the queue line for the free dharshan and one has to necessarily cross the queue line for entering the said prakara; that inasmuch as the Nazhikettan entrance is the only way through which devotees could enter into the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 moolasthanam to worship the presiding deity, it would create difficulties in regulating the queue if anyone cross the queue to enter into the said prakara; and hence, as a regulatory measure, a barricade by way of grill gate has been affixed at the entrance of the Prakara. However, the grill gates are opened and the devotees are allowed to enter into that prakara without any restriction on days, when there is no much crowd of devotees; and that the said prakara is also opened on utsavam (festival) days when the temple deities are carried in that prakara for coming around the temple. The counter affidavit further proceeds to state that the devotees, who wish to make a prathikshana of the temple are free to do so without any hindrance through the third, fourth and fifth prakarams referred to as Kulasekaran thiruchutru, Alinadan Thiruchutru and Agalangan Thiruchutru respectively. Thus, according to the second respondent, the restriction of entry into the second prakara is bona fide and valid in the public interest.
7.An affidavit was also filed by the third respondent, in which, it is stated that in order to facilitate the free flow of the devotees safely, queues are formed to enter the “Santhana Mandapam” to have quick darshan. It is further stated that in pursuance of the directions of the second respondent, the movable barricades placed on the eastern and western side of the Santhana https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 Mandapam have been rearranged in order to facilitate the devotees who undertake Pradhakshanam. It is also stated that more facility is available to the devotees to undertake uninterrupted Pradikshana in the fifth Prakaram “Agalangan Thiruchutru”, which system is followed for several years by the devotees. Thus, according to this respondent, the allegations made by the petitioner are not only derogatory, but also defaming, which provoked the third respondent to make complaint against him.
8.Opposing the averments made by the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner filed his response by filing rejoinder affidavit, wherein, the petitioner raised several allegations against the third respondent, including violation of Sampradhaya, apparent intervention in the religious affairs and mismanagement of the immovable properties of the subject temple. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the devotees are literally running from pillar to post to have dharshan of their beloved God.
9.Thus, the issue involved in this writ petition is relating to removal of the barricades in the 2nd prakara referred to as Rajamahendran Thiruchutru of the subject temple and make it available for the devotees to do Prathakshina. The same was already observed by the UNESCO Fact Finding Mission for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 Tamil Nadu 2017 constituted to understand the ritualistic norms and conservation processes of the temples, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23.08.2016 in suo motu WP.No.574 of 2015.
10.When the things stood thus, this Court directed the respondents to find out the possibilities to remove the grill gates and permit the devotees to Rajamahendran Thiruchutru through 2nd prakara. Accordingly, the third respondent having discussions / inspection with the Archakas in the presence of the trustees available in the subject temple, filed an affidavit on 12.08.2020, wherein, it is stated that the devotees would be regulated into 3 queues viz., Dharma dharshan, Rs.50/- ticket queue and Rs.250/- ticket queue. The dharma darshan queue during festival seasons starts even from the main gopuram and on the other days, the queue would normally commence from Aryabhattal gopuram and the same would proceed towards left of the 3rd prahara – Kulasekaran Thiruchutru extend to the northern side of the Kulasekaran Thiruchutru then comes back near the Dwajasthambam and enter the nazhikettan entrance to the Rajamahendran Thiruchutru (2nd prakara) and thereafter, enter the Santhanu mandapam from the western side and go inside the Moolasthanam, then after having dharshan the devotes would return through the eastern side of the santhanu mandapam and would proceed to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 northern side towards senai muthalwar sannidhi and come out through the Thondaiman medu to reach the Kulasekaran Thiruchutru (3rd prakara) from where they can reach the kodimaram (Dwajasthambam) and take pradakshanam. It is further stated therein that there is no belief or any practice in the temple to have pradakshanam in the 2nd prakara and also prostate as respect, but the same is done only from the 3rd prakara specifically during the monthly Ekadesi which has been the usual practice of all the Vaishnavites and in fact, the said pradakshinam done in the 3 rd prakara would include the Dwajasthambam and all the sub deities that are situated in the 2 nd prakara and the principal deity and therefore, the pradakshina done in the 3rd prakara on Ekadesi days is considered to be auspicious in the temple. It is also stated therein that during non festival days, when the viswaroopa seva is conducted at 6.00am, the devotees are allowed to take pradakshana in the 2nd prakara along with the temple elephant, cow and horse, since the barricades placed on the southern side of santhanu mandapam is removed for the procession of the elephant, but the numbers would be regulated taking into the constraint of space and also to allow the temple elephant to enter the santhanu mandapam without any hindrance and therefore, during these timings, if any person wishes to do pradakshina and prostate in the 2nd prakara, the same could be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 done, but according to the Archakas, it is not advisable to prostate between the Dwajasthambam and the deity. However, during the monthly Ekadesi, Amavasai and Revathi natchatram days and other festivals, when the utsavar deity is taken in procession within the 2nd prakara, the devotees are allowed to take pradakshina along with the utsavar deity. Thus, according to this respondent, other than the occasions mentioned above, during which the pradakshana could be freely taken over by the devotees as mentioned, whenever there is usual seva time, it would be very difficult for the temple administration to remove the temporary barricades and allow the devotees to take pradakshana in the 2nd prakara as there would be continuous in flow of devotees throughout the day during seva timings.
11.In response to the above affidavit filed by the third respondent, the petitioner filed an affidavit on 06.10.2020, wherein, it is stated that the third respondent instead of providing time slots for devotees to do dharshan, has categorically rejected altogether doing pradakshina in the 2nd prakara. The petitioner further stated that there is one Utsavam or other every month in Srirangam, not all days attracting huge numbers of devotees and especially in the auspicious days, in the name of providing the devotees an opportunity to have darshan and queue control, the respondents even stop the regular poojas. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 It is also stated therein that the third respondent has no right to make alterations to pooja timings for whatsoever reason that he may have to say. Adding further, the petitioner stated that in the Covid-19 situation, the number of devotees coming to temple even during Purattasi Sanikkizhamai is very less and the current way of running the queues is one of the worst possible designs. According to the petitioner, in the 2nd Prakara, called Rajamahendran Thiruchutru, several important Sannidhis and rooms are located and to deny the right to have a glimpse at these various rooms and sannidhis is an utter disgrace and shows the insensitivity towards the religious sentiments and incapability of the respondents in managing the temple affairs. It is further submitted that the denial of public movement in important areas of 2nd prakara is one of the important reasons for stealing several artefacts from this temple in the recent years. Thus, according to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is only the Executive Officer of the temple and has no role in deciding who must prostrate or not prostrate at any part of the temple and the current way of managing the queue discriminates between the haves and have nots and it causes heavy bottleneck at the entrance of the moolasthanam right in sandhana mandapam in front of the Dwarapalakas; and the proposed queue system will rid of all these undesirable situations and will also result in a peaceful darshan for one and all. It is also important to note that the current system gives room https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 for corruption wherein several persons employed in the temple take their "near and dears" as VIPs right through the Nazhikettan Vasal - the entrance between the 2nd and 3rd Prakara. The petitioner also filed a plan pertaining to the second prakara of the subject temple.
12.Subsequently, as directed by this Court, the third respondent filed a detailed report in the form of affidavit on 18.11.2020 stating that apart from permitting the devotees to take pradakshanam in the second prakara during the Viswaroopa dharshan between 6.00 am to 6.30 am, the devotees, who would like to take pradakshanam in the 2nd prakara specifically, can do so between 6.00 pm to 6.30 pm from Monday to Thursday except Friday, Saturday and Sunday and other festival days.
13.In these circumstances, as agreed by all the parties, this Court by order dated 18.11.2020, appointed two advocate commissioners viz., Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana, and Mr.R.J.Karthick to ascertain the interim arrangement so made by the third respondent and for exploring the appropriate methodology for permitting the devotees to have pradakshanam in the 2nd prakara of the subject temple. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioners conducted inspection and filed their comprehensive report on 02.12.2020, wherein, it is suggested as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 "(a)The existing free dharshan queue may be dismantled and convert the Rs.50 queue as free dharshan queue. Or the existing free dharshan queue may be extended and connected to the existing Rs.50 queue to take a larger number of free dharshan. The existing Rs.250 queue may be converted into Rs.50 queue and a separate queue may be put in place for Rs.250 devotees immediately south of it. If so, all the devotees can be let in through the 'Naali Ketan Vaayil of 2nd Prakaram' in rotation and the devotees may be asked to take a right turn and enter the 'Santhanu Mandap' from the Eastern step as the present Rs.250 devotees enter. Have a dharshan of the Lord and exit through the Western steps. Take a full Prathakishnam and have to walk back to Thondaiman Medu to exit through 3rd Prakaram or move right to complete Prathakishnam and return back to the Thondaiman Medu.
(b)In the above system, the devotees who have completed Prathakshina, may be asked to wait as they do in Tirupati and incoming devotees may be stopped for a few minutes and the waiting devotees may be requested to exist from the same gate from which they enter. The devotees in hurry may walk back to Thondaiman Medu and exit. The existing Thondaiman Medu is an added advantage to the aged devotees and sick people for quick exist. In fact, such a facility is not available in Tirupati. In the first system, there is a possibility of some devotees, trying to have a second or third dharshan, this can be prevented by using the Rs.250 railing arrangements for all the devotees to enter the Santhanu Mandap from the Eastern end.
(c)At out request, the Executive Officer of the temple (R3) provided us a statement showing the income collected from the ticket entry from the period of July 2017 to October 2020. On a perusal of this, we could easily see that understandably there is a surge in collection for the month of December and January. However, we could hear certain devotees who paid Rs.250 complaining about the disappointment for being permitted for dharshan only for a few seconds. As already said, such a complaint is not in Tirupati because of the location and standing posture of the God. The paid dharshan cannot be dispensed with in view of the income received by the temple and convenience of the devotees who want quick dharshan and move out. The administration may consider our suggestion of merging the Rs.250 and Rs.50 queues and form a single queue of Rs.100. Because the persons ready and willing to pay Rs.50 may not mind to pay Rs.100 and for those who pay Rs.250 may save Rs.150. This reduced rate may increase the sale of ticket and compensate the total income. Rs.100 is the ticket amount collected in Madurai and Palani Temple to have dharshan of the Lord may be noted. If this is done, the problem of exit and entry will greatly be reduced and there will be no need to dismantle and put new railings.
(d)We honestly feel that opening up the 2nd prakaram cannot raise any security and safety issues. Even though, two strong rooms are in the 2nd prakara, they are visible to all the devotees even now. Further, when the prakara is thrown open to the public, no one will dare to break open the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 locks. 70% of the 2nd prakaram is closed by stone roof. About 30% of the roof is opened to sky in and around the small temple of Vibeekshana. The administration may consider closing the opening with iron railings, making way for light or air.
We have made the suggestion with humility and that they may be put on trial for sometime before taking up for final decision."
14.The supplementary report filed by the Advocate Commissioner Mr.R.J.Karthick, states that the following places are situated in the 2nd Prakara:
1.Thiruvanthikappu Mandapam
2.Satthupadi Room
3.Thekkal Room
4.Vijayarenga Chokkanathan Statue
5.Yagasalai
6.Kannadi Room
7.Kodai Theertha Kinaru
8.Vimana Dharshan site (behind Moolashtanam)
9.Senai Mudhaliar, Vibhishanalwan, Hanumar Sannithi
10.Kili Mandapam
11.Aravanai Mani
12.Revathi Mandapam
13.Cherakula Valli Nachiyar Sannithi
14.Thulukka Nachiyar Sannithi
15.Sri Krishnar Sannithi
16.Srineevasar Emperumanar Vaibhavam
17.Thulukka @ Beevi Nachiyar Sannithi
18.Nampillai Edu Kalasheba Sthalam
19.Thiruvadi However, as per the present arrangement, the devotees worship only the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017
1.Thiruvadi,
2.Nampillai Edu Kalasheba Sthalam
3.Senai Mudhaliar, Vibhishanalwan, Hanumar Sannithi and
4.Vimana Dharshan site (behind Moolashtanam) Even during the commission, the pathway to the other places as above mentioned are closed by Iron Gates with Lock and Key.
15.The supplementary report also describe the physical feature of the 2nd praharam. The main entrance of the 2nd praharam called as “Nazhi Kettan Entrance” is the main ingress to the sanctum. The width of the entrances is 7.555Ft and in the steps portion, because of the existence of the Pillar like structure, the width reduces to 6.355 Ft. The 2nd praharam begins with the “Nalu Kall Mandapam” (Four Pillar Mandapam). The western portion of the 2nd praharam from the walls of the sandana Mandapam width about 14 Feet and width of the Four Pillar Mandapam is 11.8 feet. The ceiling of the western portion of the 2nd praharam is only 22.5 feet. Thus, the Advocate Commissioners, through their reports, submitted that the suggestions put forth by them may be put on trial by the third respondent.
16.Subsequent to the report filed by the Advocate Commissioners, at the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 request of all the parties and upon physical inspection on 09.10.2021, this court advised the petitioner as well as the respondents to have a meeting to figure out the best solution, for circumambulation of the 2nd prakara by one and all; circumambulation of the 2nd prakara by devotees (locals) who want to do that, but not have dharshan of Shri Ranganatha Swamy, due to time constraints and the influx of large number of devotees from outstations; and merging the free dharshan and paid dharshan at the Nazhikettan Vasal, the southern entrance between the 2nd and 3rd prakaras. Accordingly, meeting was held and some interim arrangements were made, however, the same did not work out.
17.Thereafter, on 11.02.2022, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Chennai, undertook to inspect the subject temple and report about the feasibility of permitting the devotees to undertake pradikshanam in the second prakaram. Accordingly, he conducted inspection in the presence of all the parties including the Advocate Commissioners and filed a report on 03.03.2022, wherein, it is inter alia stated as follows:
"11. Therefore, it was suggested as follows:
(a) The free dharshan 'Q' line would be formed in the western side of third praharam and enter the Naazhikettan Vaasal and reach the western side of the stair case as usual in the second praharam;
(b) The Rs.100/- dharshan 'Q' will assemble in the eastern side also enter the Nazhikettan Vaasal as usual from the eastern side of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 'Sandhana Mandapam'.
(c) Both the 'Q' lines will be held for few minutes (shown int he sketch as ' FD Hold' and 'TDF Hold') to allow the devotees who come out of 'Gayathri Mandapam' to get down on the western stair case from Sandhana Mandapam and the devotees waiting in the free dharshan 'Q' line and Rs.100/- 'Q' line will be allowed inside Gayathri Mandapam in batches;
(d) After the devotees come out from Gayathri Mandapam and get down from Sandhana Mandapam, they will proceed towards North in the second praharam and turn right to reach the 'Thondaimaan Medu' and there will be a sign board indicating about the 'Exit' and those who wish to exit immediately can go out through the Thondaimaan Medu and reach the third praharam.
(e) An indication is also made in the very same sign board mentioning 'Pradikshanam' for those devotees who wish to have pradikshanam in the second praharam, who can proceed beside the 'Senai Mudhalvar Sannadhi' and climb the Kili Mandapam and have dharshan of the vimanam and other deities and get down opposite to 'Krishnar Sannadhi' from Kili Mandapam, and exit through Naazhikettan Vaasal, however, subject to waiting for a few minutes near the 'Naazhikettan Vaasal' depending upon the crowd in the Rs.100/- 'Q' line.
12. I submit that I have advised the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer to have the procedure commenced from 01.03.2022 and try out the same for three weeks and to find out the feasibility and also the advantages and disadvantages and also inputs, if any, from the devotees and report the same to this office. The petitioner as well as the Advocate Commissioner was informed about the said proposal to do so which they agreed, however, the petitioner represented that the devotees should not be allowed to exit through the 'Thondaimaan Medu' and made to go in perambulation in the second praharam only and exit through 'Naazhikettan Vaasal'. I was informed by the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer that such procedure was followed for three days in the month of December and there were lot of objections from the devotees to allow them to freely exit through 'Thondaimaan Medu' instead of making them wait before the 'Naazhikettan Vaasal' to allow the paid dharshan 'Q' line to pass through. Therefore, at this point, it is better to allow those devotees who wish to exit through 'Thondaimaan Medu' to reach the third praharam and go out soon if they wish so and those devotees who are willing to take perambulation in the second praharam can do the same subject to waiting for a few minutes before the 'Naazhikettan Vaasal'.
13. I submit that the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer was asked to engage more number of contractual staff to regulate the 'Q' line near the 'Sandhana Mandapam' for the new arrangements and politely request the devotees to wait for their turn of dharshan apart from providing the devotees water and ventilation by affixing fans in the 'Q' https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 line and also providing seating facility while they are waiting in the 'Q' line so that the devotees don't get stressed about the waiting time or become weak by standing in the 'Q' line when the crowd is in excess. Besides the same, I have instructed the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer to improve the facilities by taking initiatives for providing prasadams to the devotees waiting in the 'Q' line, if the waiting time is longer due to crowd and make seating arrangements for the elderly who stand in the 'Q' line by identifying suitable places.
14. I submit that I have also instructed the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer to make survey of the time taken by devotees both in the free dharshan and paid dharshan on lean days and weekends and festival days by affixing wrist tags on the selecteed devotees as test method and have the same scanned to measure the time taken for having dharshan in various periods so as to see if any further developments could be thought of.
15. I submit that I am informed by the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the temple on 01.03.2022 that the new system of the 'Q' line as a trial method has commenced from 9.00 am on 01.03.2022 and will continue for at least three weeks. Thereafter, I intend to conduct another personal inspection if necessary to know about the views of the devotees and also the time taken for each devotee to pass through the 'Q' line and come out after dharshan in order to see if there is necessity to review the situation or make any other arrangements."
18.This court, while recording the aforesaid report dated 03.03.2022, directed the respondent authorities to work out the arrangements made in the said report and also directed them, including the petitioner, to submit their feedback of the same.
19.Accordingly, today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the petitioner / party-in-person as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submitted that the arrangements now made in the subject temple, are going smoothly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017
20.In view of the aforesaid submissions made by all the parties, this court is of the opinion that the core issue involved herein qua to do Pradikshanam in the Second Prakara, is now, settled and therefore, no further adjudication is required in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed. The report filed by the second respondent / Commissioner, HR & CE department dated 03.03.2022, Layout plan showing details of Q-Line for free dharshan, paid dharshan Rs.100/- and second praharam pradhatchanam in Arulmigu Renganathaswamy Temple Srirangam, shall form part of this order. No costs.
[R.M.D., J.] [P.D.A., J.] 17.08.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes/No maya /rk To
1. The Secretary The State of Tamil Nadu Department of Tamil Development Culture, Religious Endowments & Information Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 039 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017
3. The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer Shri Ranganatha Swamy Temple Srirangam
4. The Board of Trustees Shri Ranganatha Swamy Temple Srirangam https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/22 WP No. 2587 of 2017 R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
maya/rk WP No. 2587 of 2017 17.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/22