By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2.The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the respondents 5 to 11 from excommunicating the petitioner and his 25 families (pangali) members from their community based on the representation, dated 31.07.2009.
3.The facts of the writ petition as could be culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that there are 80 families belonging to the same community residing at Gandhi Nagar, East Colony, Jayamangalam, Theni District. A temple is situated in S.No.341/C and according to the petitioner, the land was given pursuant to a gift to the people of the petitioner's community about 52 years ago by one Muthukamatchi Pillai for worshipping God Madurai Veeran, Goddess Pattalamman and God Karuppasamy. According to the petitioner, they have been worshipping the said Gods for the past 52 years and a Maha Kumbhabhisekham was decided to be conducted for which money was received as Thalaikattu vari for the three Gods. It is the allegation that the private respondents stopped the entry of the worshippers of God Karuppasamy and restricted to go near the statue of God Karuppasamy. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition for the relief stated supra.
4.When the matter came up for admission on 12.08.2009, this Court raised the issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and as to how such a relief sought for can be granted. Accordingly, the matter was posted for orders on 18.08.2009 and the matter has been heard today.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions raised in the affidavit would submit that the action of the respondents 5 to 11 is a clear interference of the petitioner's rights enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and that when such a complaint is made, the official respondents are bound to take action.
6.Learned counsel would rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1962 SC 853 (Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb Vs. State of Bombay) and contend that the power and the right to excommunicate and penalising the exercise of the power, strikes at the very life of the community by rendering it impotent to protect itself against dissidents and it is thus, a violation of the right to practice religion guaranteed under
Article 25 (1) and is also violative of
Article 26 in that it interferes with their rights.
7.Learned counsel would also rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 2984 (Commissioner of Police Vs. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and another) and contend that
Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees to every person, freedom of conscience and right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
8.Learned counsel would rely upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (4) CTC 241 (K.Gopal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu) which pertains to the Katta panchayat and illegal Kangaroo Courts issuing unlawful decrees of excommunication imposing huge fine against persons who displease them. Based on these judgments, learned counsel would submit that a direction has to be issued, as prayed for in the writ petition.
9.Learned Government Advocate on instructions would submit that complaints have been received by both the groups and essentially, the matter is a dispute concerning the same community members. According to the instructions received by the learned Government Advocate, he would submit that the Thalaikattu vari has been received only by printing the photographs of Gods Madurai Veeran and Pattalamman and no collection has been made by representing God Karuppasamy. He would further submit that if at all, the petitioner has got any grievance against the rival group, he can workout his remedy before the competent civil court.
10.Learned Government Advocate would also placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 1018 (State of Rajasthan V.Bhawani Singh) and contend that the disputed questions relating to title cannot be gone into or adjudicated in a writ proceedings and writ petition seeking declaration of title of disputed property is misconceived and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
11.Heard Mr.K.Gokul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the materials available on record.
12.The right enshrined under
Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees to every person, freedom of conscience and right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion which right cannot be infringed. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such a right is subject to public order related to health and morality and other provisions relating to Fundamental Right. Therefore, whatever rights which according to the petitioner for the purpose of worshipping their God Karuppasamy cannot be infringed but such a right is subject to the public order. Therefore, there cannot be any quarrel about the proposition put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, the affidavit solely proceeds based on the allegations made against the respondents 5 to 11. These issues cannot be gone into in the present writ petition. The question as to whether such a religious practice is an integral part of Hindu religion or not is a question of fact to be decided by a Court depending upon the evidence adduced by the community. Therefore, these questions cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition.
13.Further, in the typed set of papers, the petitioner has filed a copy of the Maha Kumbabisheka notice and the photographs of the two Gods namely, Maduraiveeran and Pattalamman have been displayed by placing reliance on this, learned counsel would submit that their God Karuppasamy has been omitted.
14.Learned Government Advocate on instructions would submit that the warring groups have also produced a copy of the receipt to be issued for receiving the donation and even in the said receipt the photograph of the God has not been displayed. These matters also fall within the factual thicket which cannot be effectively adjudicated in a writ petition. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. While dismissing the writ petition, it is observed that no person or group of persons or anybody could prevent a person from worshipping his/her deity or practising or professing his religion and such an event comes to the notice of the official respondents, they are bound to take action in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
sms To
1.The District Collector, Theni District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.
3.The Tahsildar, Periyakulam Taluk, Periyakulam, Theni District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Devadanapatti Police Station, Devadanapatti, Theni District.