Akila v. The Govt. of Tamilnadurep. By its Secretary, P.W.D Secretariat,Chennai-600 009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30 .04.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.ANDTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARANW.P.No.30779 of 2008 and W.P.No.2670 of 2009----Akila.. Petitioner in W.P.No.30779/2008K.Periyakaruppan.. Petitioner in W.P.No.2670/2009vs1. The Govt. of Tamilnadurep. By its Secretary, P.W.D Secretariat,Chennai-600 009.2. The Secretary to Govt.,H.R. & C.ESecretariat,Chennai 600 009.3.The Commissioner,H.R. & C.E,NungambakkamChennai 600 034.4.K.Raju5.K.Subramani6.K.Suresh ... Respondents in both the writ petitionsPrayer in W.P.No.30779 of 2008: This Writ Petition is filed prayingthis Court to forbear the respondents, their men and agent fromremoving or demolishing the Istalingeswarar Temple, in the existingplace in the Govt. Estate, Chennai-600 002.Prayer in W.P.No.2670 of 2009: This Writ Petition is filed prayingthis Court to forbear the respondents, their officials, their men,agent and servants from removing or replacing Ishtalingeswarar Deityand the Temple from the existing place of Omandhurar Garden Estate,Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Balamanickam ... For Petitioner in W.P.No.30779/08 Mr. T.V.Krishnamachari ... For Petitioner in W.P.No.2670/09Mr.J.RajaKalifulla G.P ... For first respondentin both WPsMr.T.Chandrasekaran Spl.G.P. ... For Respondents 2 and 3 in both WPsN.KIRUBAKARAN,J.These writ petitions raise a point with regard to 'Swayambulingam' (Manifestation of Lord Shiva swaroopam) whether the Swaymabulingam can be replaced in a different place rather than from thepresent place. It is stated that man is a creation of God and it isalso being said that God is made by man. The faith of God, thescientist say is embedded in the genes of the men. 2. As the matter relates to faith in religion and also withregard to 'Swayambu Linga' (Manisfestation of Lord Shiva byhimself), without giving any personal opinion, the Court isconstrained to consider the issue as it was called upon to do solegally.3. The facts of the case are as follows:Both W.P.Nos.30779 of 2008 and 2670 of 2009 are public interestlitigations praying for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondentsfrom removing, demolishing Istalingeswarar temple in the existingplace inside the Government Estate, Chennai 600 002. Both petitioners(hereinafter referred as petitioner) stated in their writ petitionsthat "Swaymbu lingam" ( Manifestation of Lord Shiva swaroopam) wasidentified in the year 1600 in the lands which is now known asGovernment Estate, Chennai-600 002.4. It is also alleged that only in the year 1968, the priestKuppusamy Gurukkal performed pooja to the presiding deity,Istalingeswarar requesting the then Government to construct acompound wall around the temple in the year 1968 and the same wasapproved by the Government and the temple was renovated. At thattime, an Aavudyaar i.e., Pedastal was built around the "Baanam"(Swayambu Lingam) and a Kumbabishekam was performed. After the lifetime of the priest Kuppusamy Gurukkal , the respondents 4 to 6 wereappointed as hereditary Trustees by the second respondent (secretaryto H.R and C.E department) by virtue of the order passed in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O.A.No.3/2000 on 05.06.2002.5. It is also averred by the petitioner in the reply to thecounter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 that theinscription of 1932 in a stone embedded in the temple says thatVenkatasamy Naidu of Kottur village has donated some contributions tothe Istalingeswarar. She also quoted a poem from 'Thirumandiram'which was composed by saint Thirumoolar who lived nearly 1800-1900years ago. The second Thandhiram in poem 515: under the caption"Thiru Koizhil Zhivu" speaks about consequences of damaging the holytemple and damages of transplanting lingam. Based on that, thepetitioner contended that it is a "Swaymbu lingam" (Manifestation ofLord Shiva swaroopam by himself) and not man made and that it cannotbe removed, relocated and if it is done it would amount toinfringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 and 26of the Constitution of India. The petitioner apprehended that thelingam would be replaced on account of the respondent/Government'seffort to construct a new building of the New Legislative AssemblyComplex.6. The state Government filed their counter stating that theGovernment decided to construct a State of Art new Assembly complexfor Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly at Omandurar, Government Estate,Chennai-2 vide G.O.Ms.No.209 Public Works Department dated04.07.2007. It had already approved the plan for construction for newAssembly complex and the temple lies within the area demarcated forthe third circle of the New Legislative Assembly Complex. The templearound 'Ganesa' naturally formed in the banyan tree "AlaramaraIyarkai Vinayakar Temple" has already been relocated in another areanear Omandurar Government Estate as per G.O.Ms.No.330 Public WorksDepartment dated 11.11.2008 leaving the Banyan tree as the tree doesnot lie within the area demarcated for the construction of NewAssembly Complex. As per the Government Order, the H.R and C.Edepartment shifted the idols around the Banyan tree to the newlyallotted area in the Government Estate complex. Hence, LordIstalingeswarar temple has to be treated on par with "AlaramaraIyarkai Vinayakar Temple". 7. It is further contended that Thiru.K.Subramanya Gurukkal, oneof the hereditary trustees in his letter dated 06.10.2008 addressedto the Chief Engineer (buildings) Public Works Department requestedto give suitable alternative site for relocation of the temple and toconstruct the temple by the Public Works Department. He agreed toshift the temple after the construction of the temple in therelocated site which is adjacent to the area allotted for the AlamaraIyarkai Vinayakar Temple inside the Estate. As per the request ofthe said Gurukkal, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.6,Public Works Department dated 06.01.2009 allotting alternative sitemeasuring 2000 sq.ft (50' x 40') in the Government Estate in SurveyNo.3171/1 (part) which terms has been agreed to by Thiru. Subramanya https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Gurukkal. It was also ordered that the temple may be constructed inthe alternative site by Gurukkal with his own funds or the H.R andC.E Department may consider to bring the temple under their controlwith the consent of the Gurukkal and construct the temple with itsfunds.8. It was further contended by the respondents/Government that itis not possible for making alteration in the construction of thebuilding as the petitioner wanted to make alteration in the plan soas to have the temple in the same place. The Government also statedthat the petitioner has no documentary proof / evidence regarding theemergence and manifestation of 'Swaymabu Lingam' on its own on earthin the present location.9. The third respondent filed an affidavit dated 17.2.2009stating that the respondents 4 to 6 (hereditary trustees) filedO.A.No.3 of 2000 under Section 63 B of the H.R and C.E Act to declarethem as hereditary trustees to Arulmigu Istalilngeswarar templesituated at Government Estate, Chennai stating that the deity inquestion was originally kept in a thatched shed. Further it isstated that the fifth respondent adduced oral evidence before H.Rand C.E on 03.04.2002 in which he did not depose to the effect thatthe deity is a "self incarnated lingam"(Swayambu Lingam) . The thirdrespondent also filed expert opinions given by, 1. Thiru M. Muthiah Stapathi, President/Sthapathy Advisory Committee,H.R & C.E. Department, Government of TamilNadu and 2. Shaktaratna Bramhasri Dr.G.Srinivasa Sastrigal (A. G.S.SastrigalAstrologer) Veda Vadyar: Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar Temple.Important portion of the opinion given is extracted as follows:by Thiru M. Muthiah Stapathi"The Lingam has got 'Lakshnotharanam' line. The Lingamis made by a 'Silpi". This is not either self incarnatedLingam or Pana Lingam. This Lingam is located facingwestern side. It was without Avudaiyar (Peetam) for a longtime. During 1958-59 a small size Avudaiyar (Peetam) notsuitable to Lingam has been made and installed. The upperportions of the Lingam is in Virutham (circle) shape andcentre part in 8 Pattams and bottom portion is in squareshape i.e., this Lingam is in the form of Brahma, Vishnuand Sivan from bottom. Such lingams are called as KiriyaLingam. That is, Lingam has been made by human being.Hence, this Lingam can be taken and installed inanother place. While doing so, Avudaiyar (Peetam) suitableto Lingam may be made and consecrated duly constructing of'Garphagraham' (Sanctum-sanctorum) and Artha Mandapamproperly" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Shaktaratna Bramhasri Dr.G.Srinivasa Sastrigal" This Lingam might have been a Samadhi in ancienttimes. It is felt that it will be good by performingBalayam a temple suitable to Lingam may be constructed andTiruppani works executed in consultation with Sthapathi andKumbabishegam may be performed. By performing Balalayam,the Lingam shall be pulled with the help of Cow with threadmade up of Dharbai (grass), Nanal (Reed) and Silk threadtied clock wise. After the movement of Lingam, it must bekept carefully in the paddy................................................Even in the case of Suyambu lingam, and if there arehurdles such as poojas not performed for a very long time,touching the deity violating Sastras, damage done to theSwami, Kumbabishegam can be performed by performing Shanthi(rectificatory) ceremony (Pariharam) and Balayam.Moreover, the lingam looks like a created one (Giriyalingam). The structure of the temple is not so good."..........................................."It is submitted that there will be no Dosham (ill effect)if this temple is shifted to some other place constructingtemple with the experts in Silpa Sastras and performedKumbabishegam"10. The matter was heard by this Court on 23.12.2008 andallowed the petitioner as well as the respondents to find out someways and means for shifting the Istalingeswarar temple to anappropriate place, if any land is allotted by the State Government inor around the area where the present the temple is located. Againthe matter was heard on 03.02.2009 at the instance of the counsel forthe petitioner who informed that the respondents were removing'Swayambu Lingam' from the temple in question. It was represented bythe State that this Court dismissed the similar writ petition withregard to Vinayagar temple. Moreover inview of the observations madeby this Court on 23.12.2008, a piece of land has been allotted by theState Government and the trustees of the temple have accepted toshift 'Swayambu Lingam'(Lord Shiva) from the said place and forconstruction of the new temple at the site allotted by the StateGovernment. 11. It was also shown to the Court that the basement has alreadybeen constructed on which 'Swayambu Lingam'(Lord Shiva) will beinstalled by trustees by performing pooja and number of priest cameon 03.02.2009 on the basis of muhurthum. Taking into considerationof best muhurtham for shifting Suyambu (Lord Shiva), it was assuredthat within fifteen days, temporary structure will be constructed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the State Government so as to construct a formal temple in future.In that regard, the hereditary trustees already gave consent. Finallythis Court allowed hereditary trustees and the state Government toshift the 'Swayambu Lingam' to the allotted place to do so after therituals to be performed under the Hindu religion and any actionduring the pedency of the writ petition shall be subjected to thedecision of this Court. 12. Mr.Murugesan, Chief Engineer (buildings) Public WorksDepartment and Gopalakrishnan Superintending Engineer (buildings)Public Works Department visited the spot with experts and theyappeared before this Court on 18.2.2009 and represented that theycould not find any solution to construct the assembly complex in theplace without disturbing the temple.13. The Chief Engineer (buildings) Public Works Department fileda report on 19.2.2009 stating that it is not possible to constructthe assembly complex without removing the Istalingeswarar temple asit lies within the New Assembly Complex building which is underconstruction and even if the temple is allowed to be there, becauseof earth work, excavation for huge depth pilecap to a depth of fourmetre due to heavy load, is carried out and the temple willautomatically get disturbed and important portion of the report isextracted as follows:"4. In the place where the temple is presentlylocated, 30 piles (two groups) have to be driven to a depthof 20m (60 ft) from the ground level by using heavymachineries (i.e.) rigs. Over these piles, two concretepile caps will be casted. These two pile caps are to betied with the grade beam (Tie Beam), which come across thetemple, below 1.50 m (5ft) from the existing ground level.5. The above said piles, pile caps tie beams andcolumns are essentially required and cannot be relocatedconsidering the stability of the structure, since the loadcoming on each column is 5640 tonnes.6.........7. The temple is situated where the entry and exit ofthe Assembly Hall, meant for the members of the LegislativeAssembly is to be constructed.8. While earth work excavation for huge depth pile capto a depth of 4 m due to heavy load is carried out, thetemple will automatically get disturbed."14. The petitioner filed an objection to the report of the PublicWorks Department Engineer as well as the opinion of the two experts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relied on by the Government and stated that the temple can be allowedto remain in the same place and the construction may be carried outpeacefully.15. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department by his reportdated 13.4.2009 informed the Court that out of 1674 piles, 1655 pileswere already driven and 19 piles are still pending which are to bedriven inside the temple area and the piles have to be driven byusing the heavy machineries i.e. Rotary rigs and further stated thatthe entire construction was held up and further work could not beproceeded leading to increase in cost of project.16. As the petitioner did not agree for any solution, the matterwas heard on merits. We are aware that it is sensitive issue and theCourt passes orders purely based on the materials placed before it.17. Before going into the merits of the case, it has to beunderstood what is meant by "Swayambu Linga". As per "Tamil Lexicon"published by University of Madras, "Swayambu Lingam" means "UncreatedLinga". "Swamyampu Stalam" means a shrine having a cuyampu-murthi,as kaci, kanci etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding thevalidity of the Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act 1983(UP Act No. 29 of 1983) viz., Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi VishwanathTemple, Varnasi and others Vs. State of UP and others reported in(1997) 4 SCC 606, makes a reference about "Swayambhu Linga" in theopening paragraph and the same is quoted as follows:-"By and large, every Hindu believes that without visitto Kashi for a bath in River Ganges and prayer offered toLord Shiva, life is incomplete and meaningless and everyendeavour is made to visit Kashi at least once in life. Theidol of Lord Shiva at Varanasi on the bank of holy RiverGanges is one of the five Jyotirlingas in India believed tobe self incarnated (Swayambhuva) ...........................................Thoughthere are several stories of self incarnation of linga(idol) at Varanasi, the fact remains that it is veryancient." Thus the "swayambu" should have been selfoccurred and it should be an ancient one and there should beevidence/mythological narration about the same.18. It is settled principles of law that the party who approachesthe Court has to establish his/her rights or infringement of his/herright to get a remedy/relief from the Court. The petitioneraverred/alleged that "Istalingeswarar deity" is a "Swayambu" and itcannot be relocated /replaced and if it is relocated or replaced the'Swayambu Lingam' would lose its power and further contended that anydisturbances of 'Swayambu Lingam' would amount to interfering withreligious faith which is guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of theConstitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. When the petitioner has come out with a case of 'SwayambuLingam' it is the burden cast upon the petitioner to prove that it is"Swayambu". Further in this case except a photograph of a stoneinscription embedded in the temple which shows that one VenkatasamyNaidu of Kottur village donated funds for keeping of the temple inthe year 1932, there is neither expert evidence nor historicalevidence given by the petitioner to prove that the deity is 'SwayambuLingam'. The matter revolves around the concept of 'Swayambu Lingam'(Lord Shiva)., The presiding deity may be "Swayambu Lingam" or maynot be. However, there is no materials/evidence available toconclude the deity is "Swayambu Lingam" . The above said conclusionsare reached by this Court from the facts of the case and nothingbeyond that.20. On the other hand, the Government stated that the petitionerhas not produced any proof to show that the deity is a 'SwayambuLingam' and Government relied upon the opinion of two expertsviz.,Thiru.M.Muthiah Sthapathy and Shakthiratna BramhasriDr.G.Srinivasa Sastrigal, who opined that the "deity" is not"Swayambu" and it is man made. Moreover, if the deity(lingam) faceswest direction and as per the book published by the second respondentH.R and C.E Department, Tamil Nadu Government titled "ThiruMailai"Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Koil Sthala Varalaru" speaks about the periodin which Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Thirukovil was constructed. Afteranalysing the structures, sculptures and the stone inscriptions andthe direction the lord faces it was concluded that it was a recenttemple. According to the book if the presiding deity faces the westdirection, the temple is of a recent origin (page 24 of the book).The Government has already started putting up construction for NewAssembly Complex and the temple comes within the building area andthat is the reason why the Government wants the temple to berelocated in the same campus. It is not the intention of theGovernment to disturb the lingam or relocate the temple far awayplace. Infact it has offered alternative site to the presiding deityto the extent of 2000 sq.ft through the G.O.Ms.No.6 Public WorksDepartment dated 06.01.2009. It also came forward to build a templewith the funds of H.R and C.E., By shifting the temple from thepresent place, according to the Hindu sastras, the power and holinessof the deity cannot be disturbed. We are also worshippers ofLord Shiva. According to us, the almighty remains anywhere andeverywhere in the world and we cannot fix any particular place orobject in which God remains/resides. At this juncture we rememberBhaktha Praghalatha in Hindu mythology, Bhaktha Praghalathaestablished that the Lord is in existence every where and on hisprayer, the Lord Narshimha came out from the pillar pointed out byhim. 21. There are many temples which have been relocated and rebuilt.It was put forth by the Government that ArulMigu Kapaleeswarar,Thirukovil, Mylapore was reconstructed after demolition of the old https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ temple by the Portuguese. Similar is the story of Kashi Vishwanathtemple, Varnasi and Somnath Temple, Gujarat. Therefore, it may notbe correct to say that the deity/temple would lose its power if it isrelocated . In fact more space to the extent of 2000 sq. ft. hasbeen allotted by the respondent/Government so that the devotees cancomfortably worship God. Hence, it is futile to state that the'Swayambu Lingam' would lose its power and holiness if it is shiftedfrom the present place to any other place. More over, the land onwhich the temple stands is Government land.22. There are instances where new temples have come up which arenot in consonance with aagamaas or customs being followed by Hindureligion. What was once practised is not being followed today andwhat is being followed today will not be followed tomorrow. When thetimes are changing, everything is bound to change. As per aagamaaswhich is practised in southern states, only a particular sect ofcommunity alone is allowed to touch the deity and to perform thepooja whereas in northern part of India all the devotees are allowedto touch the deity and do poojas. The best example is KasiViswanathar Temple at Varanasi where all the devotees are allowed todo poojas by touching the presiding deity. Even according to Hindureligion what is being followed in one part of India is not followedin other part. Hence the deity can be worshiped by the devotees inthe new location and not necessarily in the present place.23. It has to be seen that the respondents 4 to 6, who filedO.A.No.3/2000 before the H.R and C.E Department under Section 63 (b)of the Tamil Nadu H.R and C.E Administration 1959 Act, seekingdeclaration that they are heriditary trustees of ArulmiguIstalingeswarar temple (Government Estate) did not contend that thedeity is a 'Swayambu Lingam' in the petition filed in the year 2000.Even in their evidence as contended by the Government, respondents 4to 6 have not adduced that the presiding deity is a 'Swayambu Lingam'.24. The respondents 4 to 6 are hereditary trustees of the templeas per the order dated 20.06.2002 and they have been doing poojas tothe deity and even before that as per the petition filed by themtheir father late Kuppuswamy Gurukkal had been doing pooja right from1947 onwards. The fifth respondent, one of the hereditary trustees,has given a consent letter on 06.07.2008 to relocate the temple inthe proper place. When the trustees themselves, who have been doingpoojas in the temple right from 1947 on wards, consented forrelocation of the temple within the campus, this Court is at loss tounderstand the grievance of the petitioner. When the hereditarytrustees have consented for relocation, it is not open to thepetitioner in the guise of "Public Interest" to allege that therights under Article 25 and 26 are infringed. Comparatively thetrustees have more right over the petitioner in this matter. Henceplea of violation of rights under Article 25 and 26 of constitutionis rejected. It has been held in a number of judgments of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Supreme Court that the right recognised by Article 25(2)(b) mustnecessarily be subject to some limitations or regulations(Venkatarama Devaru Vs State of Mysore reported in AIR 1958 SC (255).25. As per the contention of the petitioner relying upon thegreat Saint Thirumoolar's poem upon replacing the lingam, theconsequences will follow only if the lingam is sought to be replacedwith a evil/malafide intention of disturbing the deity or to dodisrespect to the deity. The action of the Government to relocatethe temple in a more spacious place would not come under any of theeventualities stated above.26. Even if the temple is allowed to remain in the same placedefinitely the deity will get disturbed because of the pilingoperations during construction and in that event the consequenceswill be more. To avoid this, the respondent/Government offered asuitable place which was accepted by the hereditary trustees of thetemple. When both the parties have reached a settlement/compromiseregarding the location of the temples, this Court feels that thegrievance of the petitioner is misconceived.27. The petitioner cannot contend that only if the temple islocated in the same place, the fundamental rights guaranteed underArticle 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India would be safe guarded.By no stretch of imagination, it could be concluded that byrelocation of the temple, the rights guaranteed under Article 25 and26 of the Constitution of the India would be infringed. Even afterrelocation in a more comfortable space, the devotees including thepetitioner can worship the God. If only the State Government intendsto prevent or try to interfere with the religiouspractices/propagation of religion the rights guaranteed under Article25 and 26 of the Constitution of India would be infringed. Even therights conferred under Article 25(1) is subject to 25(2) and the sameis not absolute. 28. In this case, democratically elected Government has chosenthe site which is centrally located in the city. Consideringavailability of larger Government land and other advantages, theGovernment decided to construct the State of Art, New AssemblyComplex for Legislative Assembly at the Government Estate. The actionis a secular and sovereign function of the state. In the bestinterest of worshippers and the temple, it is better to have a morespacious place (newly located place) for the temple. Relocation ofthe temple for the purpose of construction of the Assembly complex,in the opinion of this Court, would not infringe Article 25 and 26 ofthe Constitution of India. In fact, the Government has come forwardto allot more spacious place and even offered to construct templeout of its own funds. The Government, after taking the opinion ofthe reputed experts who are well versed in Hindu Religious mattersand aagamaas has taken the decision to shift the temple. There is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contra opinion produced by the petitioner. Hence, the action of theGovernment cannot be found fault with. Moreover no malafide has beenattributed against the Government.29. As stated above, the hereditary trustee has consented forrelocation of the temple. While relocating the temple, the sameshould be done according to Hindu sastras/aagamaas/usage undersupervision of well renowned experts and priests without violation ofthe above. Government after having taking the opinion of the reputedexperts who are well versed in Hindu Religious matters and aagamaashave taken the decision to shift the temple. Hence, the action ofthe Government cannot be found fault with.30. The construction of secretariat complex is a sovereignfunction of the Government. As a secular state, the Governmentdefinitely would have replaced even if it is a place of worship ofother religion also, if they are found to be within the proposedbuilding area. The Government is functioning only for the welfare ofthe people and constructing a secretariat/assembly complex is theduty of the Government. While discharging the duty with a bonafideintention, the Government is relocating the temple by allotting asuitable land and the same cannot be faulted with.31. It is well settled law by Apex Court as well as this Courtthat for exercise of discretionary and extra-ordinary jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution, there should be a judiciallyenforceable as well as legally protected right. The petitioner hasto establish his/her legal right for seeking writ of mandamus. Noone can ask for a mandamus without a legal right.32. (a) In this case, the petitioner has not established anyright for issuance of mandamus and the petitioner has no right forinsisting the location of the temple in the same place.(b) The petitioner cannot insist that the temple should not berelocated contending the deity is Swayambulingam which is not provedby the petitioner. Moreover the land on which the temple is locatedbelongs to the Government. (c)Relocation of the temple in a larger extent of land would notinfringe petitioners right guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of theConstitution of India.(d) When the hereditary trustee and temple priest whose familyhas been doing poojas for the deity right from 1947 onwards, hasconsented for relocation of temple, the petitioner cannot have anygrievance.(e) The relocation of temple is for the construction of Assemblycomplex which is a sovereign function of a welfare and the same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot be faulted, in the absence of malafide.(f) The relocation of temple is being done only after takingopinion of Scholars/Expersts in Hindu Religious matter withouthurting religious sentiments.33. By way of caution, this Court directs therespondent/Government that the relocation of the temple has to bedone according to Hindu religious practices under the supervision ofthe renowned experts/ by the priests.For the reasons stated above, the relief sought for cannot begranted. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However,there will be no order as to costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.kuaTo1. The Secretary, Govt. of TamilnaduP.W.D Secretariat,Chennai-600 009.2. The Secretary to Govt.,H.R. & C.ESecretariat,Chennai 600 009.3.The Commissioner,H.R. & C.E,NungambakkamChennai 600 034.+ 1 CC To Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, Advocate SR NO.19373+ 2 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.19982,19974Order in W.P.No.30779 of 2008 and W.P.No.2670 of 2009KG {CO}TP/18.5.2009.