logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5547 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : W.P.(MD). No. 22077 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
Parties : V. Muralikumar Versus The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S. Venkatesan, Advocate. For the Respondnts: R1, S. Shanmugam, Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 03-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 22.06.2026 and to summon the second respondent and conduct enquiry and direct him to handover the Swami Box to petitioner and members from petitioner side enabling us to conduct the Aadi Month Family Deity Pooja and the festival to Sri Devathi Amman Temple and her associated deities situated at Thanjavur on 04.08.2026 and 05.08.2026)

1. Mr.S.Shanmugam, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the first respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the first respondent.

3. This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 22.06.2026 and to summon the second respondent, conduct enquiry and direct him to handover the Swami Box to the petitioner and members from petitioner’s side enabling the petitioner to conduct the Aadi Month Family Deity Pooja and the festival to Sri Devathi Amman Temple and her associated deities situated at Thanjavur on 04.08.2026 and 05.08.2026.

4. It appears that the aforesaid temple is under the control of the second respondent and there is an inter se dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent, as a result of which the petitioner is unable to participate in the aforesaid pooja.

5. It appears that the petitioner has sent a representation as early as on 22.06.2026 with the first respondent to summon the second respondent and to allow the petitioner to conduct pooja. However, the first respondent has not acted on the same.

6. The learned Government Advocate for the first respondent submits that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to intervene in the private affairs between the parties. If at all, it is for the petitioner to work out the remedy before the appropriate forum.

7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition, after dispensing with the notice on the second respondent, by directing the first respondent to summon the second respondent and to place the request of th petitioner for the ensuing pooja to be conducted during Adi Month, which will end by 15.08.2026.

8. In case the second respondent is agreeable, the first respondent shall also ensure that adequate protection is given during the temple festival by instructing the jurisdictional police so that there is no law and order situation.

9. In case there is no consent from the second respondent, it is for the petitioner to work out the remedy in the manner known to law.

10. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal