K.A. Logan vs The Superintendent of Police and Others

N. Kirubakaran, J.—"GOD" never goes and knocks the doors of the worshippers for celebration of festivals in the Temples or places of worship. In the name of God, there should not be any dispute and clash which are unfortunately happening invariably in many villages leading to communal clash, group clash causing loss of precious human lives, sustaining of injuries, damage and loss to the properties and consequently loss of peace, violation of human rights. When such is the reality, the celebration itself could be avoided. If such a volatile situation exists, it has to be sorted out. Otherwise, festival need not be conducted. Temple festivals are joyful occasions where people with their relatives congregate and celebrate by worshiping God with their respective prayers for prosperity, advancement, peace, happiness of individuals, family, group of people or the whole humanity or the world. It is a time to forget the sorrows and sufferings by leaving there to God with prayer to guide the worshiper to come out of the problems. Such a solemn occasion should not be a cause for any dispute, difference, hatred, clash and unrest.

This Court can take judicial note from a number of cases which are being heard that the festivals are used as occasions to establish the individual''s or groups'' right, might, power, supremacy etc over the other creating bad blood which remains for ever. Therefore, it is clear that in many cases, festivals/functions are sought to be conducted not with bakthi or reverence bonafidely.

Here is a case which relates to a dispute regarding conduct of a temple festival. The petitioner, who is claiming to be a Nattamai of the village, is before this Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to provide adequate police protection on 12.06.2013, on which date, the villagers decided to celebrate the Arulmighu Muthalamman Temple Festival at Alagapuri, Parali Pudur, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

Mr. T.K. Gopalan, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Nattamai and it is a hereditary post which was also agreed upon by the villagers by a resolution dated. 17.09.1992 and contrary to the said resolution, the respondents 5 and 6 decided to celebrate the festival on 12.06.2013 and 13.06.2013. He would submit that there are two temples namely, Arulmighu Muthalamman Temple and Arulmighu Karuvalanachiamman temple and both the deities were located in the same temple located in Mandhai and subsequently, another temple was constructed by the petitioner in his own patta land, wherein Arulmighu Karuvalanachiamman deity has been placed and Kumpabisheham was also performed by the petitioner''s forefather and the keys and other valuables are only with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner should be given police protection, so that the festival could be conducted under the leadership of the petitioner.

On the other hand, Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 would submit that the entire village is on one side and the petitioner is alone is trying to conduct the festival and he wants to conduct the festival under his leadership and the same should be followed by others to perform the festival. He would further submit that the petitioner''s claim is like a hereditary Trustee regarding the temple for which he does not have any declaration from the HR & CE authorities. When the entire village is on the one side, the festival should be conducted in a peaceful manner by all.

Mr. Aayiram K. Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that under the instruction from the Inspector of Police, the festival was decided to be celebrated by the villagers and there was a Peace committee Meeting held on 07.06.2013 and it was decided to conduct the festival in a peaceful manner. However, the petitioner participated and walked out of the Peace Committee Meeting. Having done so, now he has come before this Court.

Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.

It is admitted that both Arulmighu Muthalamman Temple and Arulmighu Karuvalanachiamman Temple, are located in the same village. However, Arulmighu Karuvalanachiamman deity is now located in the temple constructed by the petitioner''s family in his own patta land. Though it is constructed in the petitioner''s patta land, the temple was constructed by the village people.

As already stated, the said Arulmighu Muthalamman Temple is located in the village Mandhai and the said temple is being worshiped by the villagers. When the two temples are belonging to the villagers and being worshiped by the villagers, the festival of the temples is required to be celebrated by the villagers together. No one can claim any monopoly or claim any preferential right over the function.

Though Mr. T.K. Gopalan, learned Counsel for the petitioner claimed that there is a resolution passed by the villagers on 17.09.1992 agreeing to the petitioner''s Nattamai, this Court is unable to understand under which provision of law, the Nattamiship is recognized and made hereditary. In the period of Panchyat raj, the Village President alone can have the control over the Village administration.

Even the resolution is dated 17.09.1992, thereafter much water has flown under the bridge. By relying upon the resolution, which was passed about quarter decade ago viz., on 17.09.1992, the petitioner cannot claim any such right. That apart, the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 has come into force. The said Act has been passed for establishing three tier Panchayat Raj System in the State and it is aimed at making Panchayat an Institution of self Government constituted under Article 243(B) for the rural area. In view of the statute, claim of the petitioner as "Nattamai" to conduct the festival is misplaced. As per Section 43 of the Act, the President is elected by the villagers. He holds a statutory post. To conduct the festival in a peaceful manner, it is appropriate that the Village Panchayat President conducts the festival, in which, all the villagers as well as the petitioner can participate. If anybody has any grievance with regard to the conduct of the festival, let them not join and create problem. Though the Panchayat President is not a party to the proceedings, this Court taking into consideration of the circumstances of the case, directs the President to conduct the festival.

As stated above, the Panchayat President namely, Mr. Letchmanan, Alagapuri, Parali Pudu, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District, is directed to celebrate the festival in both the temple. The date of celebration was already fixed as evidenced by the pamphlet which was issued on 12.06.2013 and 13.06.2013. The respondents are directed to give adequate police protection for smooth conduct of temple festival. Accordingly, this writ petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.