High Court · 2025

W.P.No.3230 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.02.2025CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.No.3230 of 2025and W.M.P.No.3579 of 2025M.Mani.. PetitionerVersus1. The District Collector, Salem District, Collectorate, Salem.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangagiri Taluk, Sangagiri, Salem District.3. The Tahsildar, Edapadi Taluk, Salem District.4. K.V.GArumugaperumal5. The Assistant Commissioner, of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Salem... Respondents1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3230 of 2025(R5 Suo motu impleaded as per order, dated 10.02.2025 in W.P.No.3230 of 2025)Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the 3rd respondent herein culminating in the impugned proceeding vide Na.Ka.No.3195/2024/A1, dated 12.12.2024 and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.M.SanthanaramanFor Respondents: Dr.S.Suriya, Additional Government Pleader, for RR-1 to 3: Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, for R4: Mr.S.Ravi Chandran, Additional Government Pleader, (HR & CE), for R5ORDERThis Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records with reference to the order, dated 12.12.2024 and to quash the same.2. Heard Mr.M.Santhanaraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Dr.S.Suriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3230 of 2025Nos.1 to 3; Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr.S.Ravi Chandran, learned Additional Government Pleader (HR & CE) for the fifth respondent.3. The case of the petitioner is that there is a dispute with reference to the administration of Sri Mahamariamman and Sri Selvavinayagar temples etc., which are in Koundampatti village. There is also a custom of going as padai yathirai to palani hills during Thaipoosam festival which is connected to the said temples. The same has to be undertaken only by the duly appointed office bearers of the temples. While so, when there was a dispute with reference to the same, when petitions were given to the second respondent and when the second respondent deputed the third respondent, Tahsildar for the peace committee meeting by the impugned order while treating both factions as A-party and B-party, the Tahsildar, in his presence, allowed an election to be connected, in which, the fourth respondent was declared to be elected for the office of 'oor thalaivar' which is nothing but the 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3230 of 2025office to administer the temples and the fourth respondent is now even arbitrarily refusing the petitioner and similarly situated devotees from taking part in the Thaipoosam festival. The offerings made by them were also not accepted.4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the third respondent/Tahsildar would submit that the Tahsildar was deputed only by the second respondent to conduct a peace committee meeting and as a part of the peace committee meeting, so as to bring peace between A-party and B-party, the arrangement was made. He would submit that it is not clear as to what exactly are the duties and responsibilities of the said 'oor thalaivar'.5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the fifth respondent would seek time to get instructions in the matter.6. The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3230 of 2025the post of 'oor thalaivar' is no way connected with either the temples administration or its affairs. It is not connected with Kavadi or Annadanam committee. It is purely a community affair and has been selected in a democratic manner. It is a customary practice that is followed in a village to give respect to a particular person. Except that, there is no other significance, especially, with relate to the Thaipoosam festival. For the conduct of Thaipoosam festival, separate communities are there and nobody prevented the petitioner also from participating in the same.7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.8. As far as the 'oor thalaivar' is concerned, in the normal literary meaning, it means the President of village. The President of village is now a local authority being coming under Part - IX of the Constitution of India and further, the entire panchayat raj is administered in a statutory regime and the 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3230 of 2025Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 is applicable and only under the said Act, the President of village is being elected. Therefore, this post namely, 'oor thailavar', which is called a respectable post, seems to be an extra-constitutional post. If certain extra-constitutional practices are resorted to by the villagers, the second or third respondents cannot be a party to it.9. Further, the peace committee meeting was conducted only to avert any law and order problem and permanent solutions such as elections etc., cannot be made in peace committee meeting, except by way of a settlement arrived at during the peace committee meeting. Therefore, in this regard, if at all there is any custom with reference to 'oor thalaivar', the learned Additional Government Pleader is not able to give specifically what are the duties or responsibilities of the said 'oor thalaivar'. It is stated that it is only a token of respect given by the community. In that view of the matter, such extra-constitutional matters cannot be decided especially by the impugned order passed by the third respondent nor he can be a party in recording such 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3230 of 2025matters.10. As far as the Annadanam festival is concerned, now, the fourth respondent himself had expressly stated that it is decided only by the committee constituted with reference thereof and the petitioner will not in any manner be prevented. Therefore, for the current year, the petitioner can participate in any manner as he wants. As far as the administration of the temples is concerned, the fifth respondent shall take up an enquiry in this regard and after taking into account the affairs of the temples, resort to appointment of trustees in the manner known to law. The fourth respondent as well as the petitioner or any other person who is willing, can be considered if they are fit and satisfied the essential requirements as per the rules that are framed by the fifth respondent department. Therefore, the administration of the temples should be as per the procedure that is laid down in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the rules made thereunder or if the parties want, they can approach 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3230 of 2025the fifth respondent under Section 63 for framing a scheme.11. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.18.02.2025Neutral Citation: nogrsTo1. The District Collector, Salem District, Collectorate, Salem.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangagiri Taluk, Sangagiri, Salem District.3. The Tahsildar, Edapadi Taluk, Salem District.4. The Assistant Commissioner, of Hindu Religious and Charitable8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3230 of 2025 Endowments Department, Salem.9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3230 of 2025D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.grs W.P.No.3230 of 2025and W.M.P.No.3579 of 202510/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3230 of 202518.02.2025 11/11