AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Mala, J.—Since the relief in both the writ petitions are one and the same, both the writ petition are taken up together for final disposal.
Both the petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners for the relief stated above. For the sake of convenience, the name of the parties are mentioned in this order.
The temple viz., Arulmigu Sri Ramalinga Sowdambigai Amman Devasthanam, Aruppukottai is under the management and control of the Aruppukottai Town Devangar Moondru Mirasugal Ullita Uravin Murai. It is admitted by both the parties that one Sivasankaran was appointed as a Trustee for the said temple for the period commencing from 05.09.2013 to 04.09.2016. There is no dispute on the same. It is also an admitted fact that the temple is belonging to Devangar Community of Aruppukottai Town Devangar Moondru Mirasugal Ullita Uravin Murai. According to Mani Chettiar, since Sivasankaran was doing some mismanagement of the temple, he was removed from the Trusteeship on 15.02.2015 and Mani Chettiar was appointed as Trustee for the interregnum period viz., 15.02.2015 to 04.09.2016.
In view of the celebrations of Maha Navami Festival commencing from 13.10.2015 to 24.10.2015, Mani Chettiar has given a representation 14.09.2015 before the respondents police. Likewise, Sivasankaran also has given a representation dated 13.09.2015 before the respondents police. Both the representations were rejected by the first respondent by his order dated 15.09.2015 stating that since there was a dispute between two fraction of people in Aruppukottai Town Devangan Moondru Mirasuval Ullita Uravin Murai, criminal cases in Crime No. 316 of 2015, 317 of 2015, 645 of 2015 and 672 of 2015 have been registered. Furthermore, Sivasankaran had filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 3000 of 2015 and the same is pending before this Court for consideration and if permission is granted to one group, it will create law and order problem between two fraction of people. Against the said order, Mani Chettiar filed W.P.(MD) No. 17194 of 2015 and Sivasankaran filed W.P.(MD) No. 17206 of 2015.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 17194 of 2015 and the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 17206 of 2015 and the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State and perused the materials available on record.
It is admitted by both the parties that Sivasankaran was appointed as Trustee for the temple for the period from 05.09.2013 to 04.09.2013. According to Mani Chettiar, Sivasankaran was removed from the Trusteeship on 15.02.2015 and he was appointed as Trustee for the interregnum period from 15.02.2015 to 04.09.2016.
According to the learned counsel for Sivasankaran, the removal of the Trusteeship is not true and genuine and on 21.02.2015, a resolution has been passed in his presence, wherein, out of 24 administrative committee members, 18 had attended and they have given confidence upon Sivasankaran. Even though, it was stated that Sivasankaran was removed from the Trusteeship, all the jewels and all the records were available with him and he has not handed over the same either to the management or any other person. The resolution passed after removing Sivasankaran is a fabricated one. Hence, he has given a complaint before the respondent police, which was registered in crime No. 645 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 120(b) of I.P.C.
According to the learned Government Advocate, the said case has been closed as Mistake of Fact.
Now, the point to be decided in this Court is as to whether both the parties shall be permitted to celebrate the Maha Navami Function from 13.10.2015 to 24.10.2015?
This Court is not a competent Court to decide the Trusteeship of the temple. The parties have to work out their remedy before the Civil forum not before this writ jurisdiction. The question as to whether Sivasankaran is the Trustee or Mani Chettiar is the Trustee has to be decided by the Civil forum not by this Court.
The learned counsel for Sivasankaran would submit that the Uravin Murai appoint the Trustee for a period of three years and accordingly Sivasankaran was appointed as Trustee for the period from 05.09.2013 to 04.09.2016. The Trusteeship shall be removed for some reasons. But, it is far off to the writ jurisdiction to decide as to whether the removal of Trusteeship is valid or not.
The only point to be decided by this Court is as to whether the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 15.09.2015 is sustainable or unsustainable?
Admittedly, as soon as Sivasankaran was alleged to be removed from the Trusteeship, there was a fight between both the parties, which generated cases and cases in counter, which is incorporated in the first paragraph of the impugned order. Hence, the apprehension on the mind of the respondent police is acceptable. Once there are two groups for celebrating the temple, claiming Trusteeship and if permission is granted to one group, it will lead to law and order problem. Hence, the reason assigned by the first respondent is acceptable.
The learned senior counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court rendered by me in W.P.(MD) No. 14732 of 2015. There is no quarrel over the same. But, the facts are different from this case. In the said case, the parties sought for permission to conduct conference on their own patta land and there is no rival between two groups. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
The learned senior counsel has taken me through the Article 25 of the Constitution of India and submit that freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. It is appropriate to incorporate the same:
"25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion-
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus."
But, here, for a same temple, both parties want to celebrate the festival on the same day. According to both the counsel, even though the temple is belonging to Devangar Community of Aruppukottai, all the people will attend the Maha Navami Festival, irrespective of the Caste and Creed. If two fractions of people celebrating the function for the same festival, it will create public law and order problem. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel does not merit acceptance.
At this juncture, this Court taken the Division Bench Judgment of the First Bench of the Principal Seat rendered in W.P. No. 25995 of 2015 in D. Jayamoorthy Vs. The District Collector, Villupuram, wherein, two groups want to perform the temple festival. The First bench of the Principal Seat has held that the maintenance of law and order must take primacy and disposed the writ petition. It is appropriate to incorporate para 4 of the said judgment, which read thus:
"4. We must emphasise that maintenance of law and order must take primacy. Either in peace committee meetings, different groups take a reasonable stand and are able to resolve the issue of how all can pray without hindrance. If, however, the authorities feel that there is threat to peace, they would be well within their rights to cancel the celebrations and stop access to the temple for the larger good of society, so that the Lord does not see the spectacle of different groups fighting over the celebrations in the temple."
Here also, even though the matter was referred for Mediation, the matter could not resolve. A suggestion was put on them that a Commissioner may be appointed either in the Retired District Judge cadre or Retired High Court Judge and in his supervision, the festival shall be performed, it was not agreeable for Mani Chettiar. As already discussed supra, the reason assigned by the respondent police for rejecting the representations is sustainable. Hence, the impugned order passed is hereby confirmed, after applying the decision of the First Bench of the Principal Seat. Therefore, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to give permission and police protection to any of the parties to celebrate the Maha Navami Festival from 13.10.2015 to 24.10.2015 and these petitions are deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 is also dismissed.