M.Radhakrishnan v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119/3, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Ors

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED:10.01.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAHW.P.(MD) Nos.14382 of 2011 and 185 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2011and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012W.P.(MD) No.14382 of 2011:M.Radhakrishnan :Petitioner-versus-1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119/3, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai.2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai.3. The District Collector,Sivagangai District,Sivagangai.4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.5. The Tahsildar, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District.6. The President, Village Panchayat Board, Thiruvudaiyarpatti Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.7. Ganesan8. R.M.Madhavan :RespondentsWP(MD)No.185 of 2012:R.M.Madhavan :Petitioner -versus-1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.3. The Tahsildar, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District.4. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai.5. M.Lakshmnan6. G.Rukmani :Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2PRAYER:W.P.No.14382 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for therecords pertaining to the Order in Mu.No.4808/2011 E/1, dated 07.2011passed by the second respondent, to quash the same and to further direct thefirst and second respondents to pass orders on the petitioner'srepresentation dated 12.05.2011 as per Section 69(2) of the Tamil Nadu HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.WP.No.185 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing respondents-1 to 3 fromissuing orders recognising the sixth respondent or her husband as Ambalam toreceive Ambalam Respects during Pongal festivals from 14.01.2012 to17.01.2012 in Thiruvudaiyarpatti Village, Thirupathur Taluk, SivagangaiDistrict.For petitioner in both W.Ps. :Mr.D.GnanasekaranFor respondents-1 to 6 in W.P. No.14382 of 2011/respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.No.185 of 2012 :Mr.Ayiram K.Selvakumar Government AdvocateFor 7th respondent in W.P.No. 14382 of 2011 :Mr.M.Ajmal KhanFor 8th respondent in W.P.No. 14382 of 2011 :No appearanceORDER(Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)W.P.(MD) No.14382 of 2011 is filed by one M.Radhakrishnan, seeking aWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the secondrespondent therein, viz., the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Department, whereby the Joint Director directed thepetitioner herein to prefer an appeal as provided for under the HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Act and seeks a direction to the firstand second respondents, namely, the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner ofthe Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, to pass orders onthe representation dated 12.05.2011 as per Section 69(2) of the Tamil NaduHindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.2.Pending the writ petition, the petitioner had also sought for interimstay of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 31.12.2010 inO.A.No.7 of 2008 in relation to which, the petitioner had moved a petition,which was subsequently returned, to give rise to the filing of the writpetition. Notice was ordered in the writ petition on 16.12.2011 and thereis no order of stay. It is seen from the documents filed before this Courtthat in the above W.P.(MD) No.14382 of 2011, one R.M.Madhavan figures in asthe 8th respondent. 3.W.P.(MD) No.185 of 2012 is preferred by Madhavan, who, admittedly, isthe 8th respondent in W.P.(MD) No.14382 of 2011. The writ petitioner inW.P.(MD) No.185 of 2012 seeks a Writ of Mandamus to forbear respondents-1 to3, namely, the District Collector, Sivagangai District, the RevenueDivisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District and the Tahsildar,Thirupathur, Sivagangai District, from issuing orders, recognising the sixthrespondent one G.Rukmani, wife of Ganesan or her husband Ganesan, as Ambalam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3to receive Ambalam respects during Pongal festivals from 14.01.2012 to17.01.2012 in Thiruvudaiyarpatti Village, Thirupathur Taluk, SivagangaiDistrict. The said Ganesan figures in as the seventh respondent in W.P.(MD)No.14382 of 2011. The contentions in both the writ petitions are one andthe same. 4.Apparently for the reason that the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.14382 of2011 could not get any interim orders, W.P.(MD) No.185 of 2012 has beenfiled through the very same counsel who had filed W.P.(MD) No.14382 of 2011,wherein the 8th respondent Madhavan figures in as the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.185 of 2012. Both the writ petitions are filed by the self same counsel.5.It is seen from the documents placed before this Court that on anearlier occasion, in respect of the first temple honour to be given asAmbalam of the village, a writ petition was preferred in W.P.(MD) No.4 of2010 by one Solai, as by way of a public interest litigation. Noting thetwo counter claims made as regards receiving of temple honour, this Courtdirected a peace meet to be organised by the fourth respondent therein,namely, the Tahsildar, Tirupathur, Sivagangai District. In the event of thedispute persisting, this Court expressed the view that it is better to offerthe respects to the temple deity, so that the villagers would celebratePongal festival amicably. The order in the said writ petition was made on08.01.2010.6.Thereafterwards, there was yet another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.268 of 2011 filed by the said Solai for a Writ of Mandamus to forbearrespondents-3 to 5 therein, viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer,Devakottai, Sivagangai District, the Tahsildar, Tirupathur, SivagangaiDistrict and the Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town Police Station, fromconducting Pongal, Sivarathiri and Karthigai festivals in TiruvudayarpattiVillage and for a direction to respondents-1 and 2 viz., the DistrictCollector, Sivagangai and the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, toprovide adequate police protection for peaceful conduct of the festivals.By order dated 12.01.2011, this Court disposed of the writ petition, givingdirections to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, to convene a peacecommittee meeting between the petitioner and the sixth and seventhrespondents, viz., Rukmani Ganesan and Madhavan, who happen to be the sixthrespondent and petitioner respectively in W.P.No.185 of 2012, and to arriveat the final settlement regarding the conduct of the festival. This Courtmade it clear that if no decision is arrived at on consensus basis, thedecision taken in the peace committee meeting held by the Tahsildar,Tirupattur on 30.12.2010 would govern for the year's Pongal festival. 7.Accordingly, a peace committee meeting was organised, but ultimatelywithout any fruitful result, thus leading to law and order problem. In thecircumstances on 14.1.2011, an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. wasclamped. On 08.12.2011, on the eve of Karthigai festival, there was a peacecommittee meeting between the writ petitioner in W.P.No.185 of 2012 and thesixth respondent therein, in the presence of the police officials and othervillage officials and elders. Accordingly, both sides agreed to conduct allthe festivals without causing any disturbance to the law and order situationtherein. After thus conducting such peace committee meeting, surprisinglyW.P.(MD) No.14382 of 2011 came to be filed before this Court, followed byW.P.(MD) No.185 of 2012. It is seen from the proceedings of the JointCommissioner in O.A.No.7 of 2008 dated 31.12.2010 that after issuing notice https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4to the respective parties, ultimately an order was passed, wherein, bothsides accepted Ganesan Ambalam, who happens to be the seventh respondent inW.P.No.14382 of 2011, as the person who is to receive the first honour fromthe temple and both sides pledged to that end. Considering the undertakinggiven earlier, the Joint Commissioner rejected the claim of the petitioner;in other words, he accepted the claim of the seventh respondent. With theabove facts herein, it is clear that as of today, the order of the JointCommissioner dated 31.12.2010 prevails, recognising the seventh respondentGanesan Ambalam's right to receive the first honour for the temple.8.It is further seen from the documents placed before this Court thatthe writ petitioner in W.P.No.14382 of 2011, filed a petition before theCommissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, the first respondent in W.P.No.14382of 2010, challenging the order of the Joint Commissioner as contrary toSection 63(e) of the Act and sought for cancellation of the said order. Thepetitioner is also stated to have made a representation before the JointCommissioner, who pointed out that in the face of an appeal remedyavailable, the writ petitioner has to only go before the Commissioner. 9.Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents pointed outthat in the face of Section 69(2) of the Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act, the proper course for the petitioner would be to appeal tothe Commissioner and not to file a writ petition and hence, there are nogrounds to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. 10.Going by the said provision of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Act, providing for an appeal remedy, we agree with thesubmission of the learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent thatif the writ petitioner in W.P.No.14382 of 2011 is aggrieved by the order ofthe second respondent herein, the proper course herein for the petitionerwould be to pursue the appeal filed by him, before the first respondent.Thus, we hold that having invoked Section 69(2) of the Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Act, the proper course herein would be to direct thepetitioner to pursue the appeal filed on 12.5.2011 before the Commissionerwho happens to be the first respondent in the writ petition. In thecircumstances, we accordingly dismiss the writ petition in W.P.No.14382 of2011.11.In the light of the order passed in W.P.No.14382 of 2011, we do notfind any ground to grant the relief in W.P.No.185 of 2012, seeking a Writ ofMandamus before this Court to forbear respondents-1 to 3 from issuingorders, recognising the sixth respondent or her husband as Ambalam toreceive Ambalam respects during Pongal festivals from 14.01.2012 to17.01.2012 in Thiruvudaiyarpatti Village, Thirupathur Taluk, SivagangaiDistrict. In the result, both these writ petitions stand dismissed. ConnectedM.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012 also stand dismissed.No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (AE)/ TRUE COPY /Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5To:1. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department 119/3, Uthamar Gandhi Salai Nungambakkam, Chennai.2. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Sivagangai.3. The District Collector Sivagangai District Sivagangai.4. The Revenue Divisional Officer Devakottai Sivagangai District.5. The Tahsildar Thirupathur Sivagangai District.+1CC to Dr.D.Gnanasekaran, Advocate. SR.No.991.+1CC to Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Advocate. SR.No.1096.KsvRP/19.01.2012/5P/8C.W.P.(MD) Nos.14382 of 2011 and 185 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012 Dated: 10.01.2012