V. Thiagarajan President, Hindu Baktha Jana Saba State Committee vs The Secretary to Government HR and CE Department and Others

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Claiming himself as one of the Hindu worshipers, Mr. V. Thiagarajan, President, Hindu Baktha Jana Saba State

Committee, Madurai, has filed this Public Interest Litigation seeking for a Mandamus with a direction forbearing the Commissioner, HR & CE and

the Executive Officer, Arulmighu Subramania Swami Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram from levying or collecting a sum of Rs. 37/- per worshipper for

joining the religious ceremony for Sura Samhara Festival in the Arulmigh Subramania Swami Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram in the Kandha Sashti

Function.

According to the petitioner, the Sura Samhara Festival in Arulmigha Subramania Swami Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram is to commence on

25.10.2003 and the festival will conclude with Sura Samharam on the 7th day, i.e. on 31.10.2003. During these 7 days, the worshippers have to

undergo rigorous penance to join the Lord''s army to fight the evil, namely Sura Samharam. During that period, a ceremonial Holy Thread is tied

around the right wrist of all the participating worshippers who offer themselves to be the contingent of Lord Muruga. The Executive Officer of the

temple, Thiruparankundram was collecting a sum of Re.1/- from each worshipper. The respondents 4 and 5, the Executive Officers of both

Thiruparankundram and Madurai, have now introduced a levy of Rs. 37/- per worshipper to join the religious ceremony for Sura Samhara

Festival. The respondents 4 and 5 claim that they have obtained permission from the Commissioner, HR & CE, the second respondent. The levy

of Rs. 37/- on each worshipper to observe a religious practice amounts to illegal interference with the right of the worshippers. There is no

publication by the respondents calling for objection from the worshippers regarding the levy amount. Further, the poor among the Hindu public

cannot afford to go on costly pilgrimages. The enhancement of the amount by imposing a levy of Rs. 37/- on each devotee would be in violation of

the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ for a Mandamus.

According to the respondents 1 to 3, viz., the Secretary to Government, HR & CE Department, the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner

respectively, the temple in question is under the administration and management of the Executive Officer appointed u/s 45(1) of the HR & CE Act

in the cadre of Deputy Commissioner, the 5th respondent herein. The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of Arulmighu Meenakshi

Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai Town is functioning as the fit person of the temple and he is discharging the duties of the Trust Board. Every

year, Kandha Sashti festival is being conducted for seven days during the month of Aippasi. Thousands of worshippers are participating in the

religious ceremony from various districts. During these days, the temple authorities are not able to control the large crowd and are not able to

regulate the worshippers. Therefore, the authorities in the interest of the temple, for regulating the worshippers and for giving convenient

accommodation to the participants for these seven days, have decided to introduce new fees. Accordingly, the fit person of the temple has passed

resolution on 24.10.2002 and objections from public were called for by the proceedings dated 25.10.2002 for introducing new fees. It was

notified in the Notice Board of all the temples. Since no objection was received for the proposed levy from any quarter, approval was sought for.

The Joint Commissioner also submitted his report recommending the introduction of new fees. Thereupon, the Secretary to Government, H.R. &

C.E. Department, the first respondent herein, by the proceedings dated 27.6.2003 granted approval for the proposed levy and ordered to

introduce the new fee with effect from 1.7.2003. The order has been implemented long before the filing of this petition. Even during the festival,

none of the public objected to the levy imposed. The new fee was introduced and approval was granted by the competent authorities within the

powers conferred under the statute as contemplated u/s 57 of the H.R. & C.E. Act after duly following the procedure. Under these circumstances,

the petition is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard Mr. Selvaraj, the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents.

On going through the typed set of papers, it is clear that the resolution has been passed by the fit person on 24.10.2002 deciding to enhance the

fees and notice in that regard was affixed in the Notice Board of the temple in question and copies of the same were sent to the temples in Madurai

requiring the concerned temple authorities to invite objection from the public for the enhancement of fee. Since no objection was received, the

proposal was sent to the Joint Commissioner, who in turn, recommended for approval. Ultimately, the Secretary to Government, the first

respondent passed an order granting approval on 27.6.2003. As per the approval, the proposed levy was ordered to be introduced with effect

from 1.7.2003. The festival was conducted and levy was imposed on the persons who participated in Kandha Sashti festival for seven days. Only

after the festival was over, the writ petition has been filed during October 2003.

It is also seen that the circumstances and the purpose for which the amount was enhanced have been given in the typed set. The levy of Rs. 2/-

is for garlanding flowers to the deity, of which, Rs. 1.50 would be appropriated by the Temple and the balance of Re.0.50 would be paid to the

Archakar. The levy of Rs. 5/- per day for 7 days, i.e. Rs. 35/- is for providing proper accommodation to the devotees in the Mandapam and also

for other facilities and services to them during those seven days. This levy which seems to be reasonable has been approved after observing the

procedure. It is also noticed that no one is aggrieved and no one has raised any objection except the petitioner.

The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed several petitions like this in the interest of public and as such, he has no

interest or motive to file this petition.

On the face of it, we could see that there is no valid ground to entertain this writ petition, especially when the procedures contemplated under

the Act have been followed by the authorities concerned. The resolution was passed and the same was brought to the notice of the public by

affixing the notice in the temples in and around Madurai. When the worshippers have not raised any objection and the levy was imposed only after

awaiting their objection, there is no reason for the authorities to reject the proposal and approval sent by the fit person and the Joint Commissioner.

Therefore, the contention that the levy has been imposed without notice and without considering the objection, is not tenable.

Originally, we thought of imposing heavy costs on the petitioner. However, Mr. Selvaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner would plead for

him and request this Court not to impose any costs, as the petitioner has not filed the petition with any motive. In view of the submission made by

the counsel for the petitioner, we leave him without imposing costs. We feel, this writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation is not to be

entertained as the claim of the petitioner is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.