High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD) No.6015 of 2022BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 03.02.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANW.P.(MD) No.6015 of 2022andW.M.P.(MD) No.4687 of 2022Siddha Viidya Apiyasa AlayamEstablished by Swami Sivananda Pramahamsar,Founder of Siddha Samajrepresented by its1.President Prahmasri R.Manikandan2.Secretary Prahmasri R.Karthikeyan3.Treasurer Prahmasri S.Ganesan... PetitionerVs.1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Office of the District Collectorate Building, Sathamangalam, Madurai.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Office of the District Collectorate Building, Sathamangalam, Madurai._____________Page No. 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.6015 of 20223.The Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station, Sellur, Madurai.4.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai.5.Prahmasri N.Radhakrishnan... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.No.1911/2022/C dated 21.03.2022 and quashing the same and consequently restraining the third and fourth respondents from obstructing the petitioner and other vidhyathis from doing the prayers by closing the Alayam.For Petitioner: Mr.J.Alaguraam JothiFor R1 to R4 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government PleaderFor R5: No appearance*****O R D E RThis Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the second respondent._____________Page No. 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.6015 of 20222. There is in existence of an institution titled “Siddha Vidya Apiyasa Alayam” [hereinafter referred to as 'Alayam']. It was established by Swami Sivananda Paramahamsar. The said Alayam is located at No.8, New Street 1st Lane, Sellur, Madurai - 625 002. The petitioner claims that Swami Sivananda Paramahamsar has laid down the manner in which individuals should follow his teachings and the manner by which a layperson should receive Diksha. It can only be from qualified persons, who have already been introduced to practices declared by Swami Sivananda Paramahamsar. 3. The fifth respondent had obtained Diksha and was also performing prayers with the help of the Management Committee at the Alayam. Due to disputes that arose while he was at the Alayam in Sellur, the Management Committee decided to prevent the fifth respondent from entering into the said Alayam. The matter was escalated by the fifth respondent. He lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station. The Inspector of Police, in turn, referred the matter to the second respondent. _____________Page No. 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.6015 of 20224. The second respondent called the parties for a peace committee meeting and passed an order as follows: ... ,U jug;gpdUk; ve;j Kbtpw;Fk; cld;gltpy;iy. khwhf topghl;bid jw;fhypfkhf epWj;jp nfhs;s rk;kjk; njhpe;Js;sdH. ,e;j Myak; Nfus khepyk; tlfiu Rthkp rpthde;jh guk`k;rH vd;w epHthfj;jpw;F cl;gl;ljhf mwpa KbfpwJ. vdNt jiyik epHthfpfspdhy; ,J Fwpj;J Ngrp KbT vl;lg;gLk; tiu Nkw;gb Mya topghLfs; jw;fhypkhf epWj;jk; nra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ. NkYk; Nkw;gb ,lj;jpy; rl;l xOq;F gpur;rid Vw;glhjthW fz;fhzpf;Fk;gb kJiu tlf;F tl;lhr;rpaH kw;Wk; nry;Y}H fhty; epiya fhty; Ma;thsH MfpNahH Nfl;Lf; nfhs;sg;gLfpwhHfs;.Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition.5. Heard Mr.J.Alaguraam Jothi, for the petitioners and Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader, for the first to fourth respondents. The fifth respondent, though served, is not appearing in person nor any counsel entered appearance.6. Mr.J.Alaguraam Jothi brought to my notice that a suit for permanent injunction is already pending before the learned District Munsif, Madurai, in O.S.No.210 of 2022. In the said suit, the petitioners have sought for the relief of a permanent injunction restraining the fifth _____________Page No. 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.6015 of 2022respondent, who has been arrayed as the sole defendant, from making any false complaint of propaganda against the Management Committee of Madurai Alayam or any other Vidhyarthis of Madurai Alayam. He points out that summons was served on the fifth respondent. Though the fifth respondent initially entered appearance, thereafter he remained ex parte. The suit has been pending since December 2021. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first to fourth respondents, supporting the impugned order, states that when the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, convened a peace committee meeting, in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the temple, the Management Committee stated that they have voluntarily decided to close the temple. He states that the second respondent had merely recorded the said fact. He further states that much water has flowed under the bridge since the impugned order was passed in the year 2022, and therefore, there is no necessity to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus.8. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides._____________Page No. 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.6015 of 20229. When a matter is seized before the jurisdictional Civil Court, the revenue authorities should keep their hands off and leave it to the Civil Court to decide the issue. The peace committee, by its very nature, is not one which is cloaked with legality, as pointed out by me in other judgments delivered earlier today. It is only an attempt at mediation and conciliation by the revenue authorities under the cloak of the power conferred on them. 10. I find it abhorrent that the temple should be ordered to be closed due to a dispute between the Management Committee and a private party. Apart from the persons representing before the Revenue Divisional Officer, there are other followers of Swami Sivananda Paramahamsar who have enjoyed the benefit of visiting the Alayam and offering their prayers in the mode of worship decided by their mentor. The order, by its very nature, interferes with their constitutionally protected rights of worship. I am not, for a moment, giving a finding on whether the fifth respondent has behaved in a manner which resulted in his exclusion from the company of Alayam at Sellur. If he is aggrieved by his exclusion, his remedy lies in knocking the doors of the Civil Court, which are always _____________Page No. 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.6015 of 2022open for the enforcement of civil rights. Neither the police nor the second respondent are empowered to decide the civil dispute.11. Unless and until cognizance of an offence is taken, the police do not get jurisdiction. Even if the police, in order to maintain peace and tranquility, referred the matter to the second respondent, the second respondent ought to have taken into consideration the pendency of the civil proceedings and directed the parties to work out their rights before the Civil Court. Instead, the second respondent has literally passed a decree, snuffing out the rights of the devotees to worship in the Alayam. 12. When an order is passed, without being supported by a statute, rule, or regulation, it cannot be sustained. This is especially so in this case, as it interferes with the right of the public to offer worship. 13. In light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. It is open to the fifth respondent to work out his remedy in the manner known to law before the Civil Court. This order will not stand in the way of the fifth respondent in enforcing his civil rights._____________Page No. 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.6015 of 202214. In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 03.02.2025Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / NoSpeaking Order / Non-Speaking OrderJENTo:1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Office of the District Collectorate Building, Sathamangalam, Madurai.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Office of the District Collectorate Building, Sathamangalam, Madurai.3.The Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station, Sellur, Madurai.4.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai.5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai._____________Page No. 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.6015 of 2022V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J. JENW.P.(MD) No.6015 of 2022andW.M.P.(MD) No.4687 of 2022 03.02.2025_____________Page No. 9 of 9