This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent, dated 26.07.2017, made in Na.Ka.No.61/2017 and quash the same as the same is arbitrary and ultra vires in violation of Articles 21, 26 and 39 of the Constitution of India.
2. Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent.
3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
4. Arulmigu Pandimuneeswarar Temple, Melamadai, Madurai, (hereinafter referred to as 'the temple') was declared to be a public temple, vide judgment passed in A.S.No.1 of 1925 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai. The petitioner was the one of the trustees of the temple and he had been removed from the office of trusteeship and the said issue is under challenge before the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.1133 of 2016, etc., batch of cases. Though the said cases were disposed of by a judgment dated 28.03.2017, in view of the divergent opinion of the Honourable Judges, the issue has been referred to a Third Judge for his opinion. In the meanwhile, the second respondent, by his impugned circular, dated 26.07.2017, imposed certain conditions on the Poosaries while they are doing poojas on their turns and they are:
"(i) Murai Poosaries and their relatives shall not stand on two sides of the exit point;
(ii) Murai Poosaries and their relatives shall not allow any of their relatives to have dharsan from the exit point;
(iii) Murai Poosaries shall not allow others to enter into Sanctum Sanctorum during their turn;
(iv) Two persons alone are allowed to offer Vibuthi to the devotees by standing outside Sanctum Sanctorum and two person alone are allowed to handle pooja items by standing inside Sanctum Sanctorum; and
(v) Inside Sanctum Sanctorum, Poosaries or their relatives shall not stand inside the Sanctum Sanctorum to cause any hindrance to the devotees to have dharsan."
Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
5. Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:
5.1. The second respondent by virtue of his impugned circular, interfered with the religious rights of the temple prevalent from time immemorial. The temple is opened at 04.00 a.m., in the early morning and it is closed only at 09.00 p.m., as there is no agama poojas in the temple;
5.2. As per rotation basis, the Murai Poosari used to hold the office of poosariship and perform the poojas to the deity. They are used to attend the sannidhanam for more than 15 hours;
5.3. In order to assist the Murai Poosaries, the legal heirs of the Murai Poosaries would take care of all the pooja works and perform the affiliated works in the sannidhanam;
5.4. It is impossible for a Murai Poosari to manage the whole day from 04.00 a.m., till 09.00 p.m., without any assistance from his legal heirs;
5.5. At the time of visits by important persons, they would not be allowed to stand in the queue and they would be allowed to come near sannidhanam and have dharsan and it is a usual practice in all the temples across the country;
5.6. The relatives of Murai Poosaries would receive the pooja materials and distribute Vibuthi and if they are prevented from doing so, the pooja works would be stalled;
5.7. The relatives of Murai Poosaries would not stand in the sannidhanam by obstructing the devotees from worshipping the deity; and 5.8. The impugned circular has been issued by the second respondent with a mala fide intention to remove all the poosaries who had come from the genealogy of Valliammal - the founder of the temple and to take full control of the temple and its properties.
5.9. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned circular, dated 26.07.2017.
6. Per contra, Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent as well as Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent, inter alia, contended that this writ petition itself is not maintainable, for the reason that the petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedy before the appellate authority and without doing so, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition and moreover, the impugned circular has been issued by the second respondent in exercise of his powers under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and thus, the same cannot be found fault with and therefore, they pray for the dismissal of the writ petition.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
8. At the outset itself, this Court also finds that the petitioner, though not being one of the trustees of the temple as of now, has filed the present writ petition, challenging the impugned circular, in and by which, certain restrictions have been imposed on the Murai Poosaries while they perform poojas in the temple. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, this Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the litigation that has been emerged earlier challenging the removal of the petitioner from the trusteeship, as the said issue is pending before a Third Judge for his opinion in a batch of cases.
9. However, this Court, prima facie, is of the view that the impugned circular issued by the second respondent, in Na.Ka.No.61/2017, dated 26.07.2017, warrants no interference at the hands of this Court, for the following reasons:
9.1. The second respondent, by exercising his powers under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, has issued the impugned circular, in and by which, certain directions/instructions have been issued to the Murai Poosaries to comply with during the turn of pooja works in the temple;
9.2. This Court is not able to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the conditions imposed by the second respondent in the impugned circular, wherein, certain regulatory measures have been adopted by the second respondent only in the interest of devotees;
9.3. The devotees, who visit the temple shall have the dharsan without any hindrance or obstructions while they worship the deity;
9.4. The intention of the second respondent in regulating the procedures adopted during the dharsan of the deity, is only in the interest of the devotees and the same cannot be interpreted otherwise;
9.5. The temple is the place of worship for all the devotees and there could not be any hindrance to the devotees in worshipping the deity and the purport of the impugned circular is only to regulate the system of worship prevailing in the said temple; and 9.6. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned circular issued by the second respondent is in order and the same need not be interfered with.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
To
1.The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Pandimuneeswarar Temple, Melamadai, Madurai.
.