The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of untouchability under Article 17 of the Constitution and the guarantee of equal participation in religious activities.

Heard both sides.

2. W.P.No.16762 of 2009 is filed by the Board of Trustees of Arulmighu Poottai Mariamman Temple represented by its President. The relief sought for in the writ petition is to set aside the order of the first respondent (The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate, Kallakurichi) dated 27.07.2009. After setting aside the same to forbear the first respondent RDO from in any manner interfering with the Religious Rites and Customs of the petitioner in performing the Temple Car Festival of the Temple on the last Friday of Tamil month Aadi as per the Hindu Custom and Usage.

3. When the matter came up for admission on 19.08.2009, the respective counsels took notice.

4. Thereafter, ten residents of Poottai Village Colony filed a writ petition being W.P.No.17111 of 2009 seeking for a direction to implement the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27.07.2009 based on the decision of the Peace Committee Meeting dated 27. 2007 and to permit the petitioners to take the temple car (Sakadai) through their colony during the Mariamman Temple Festival during the month of Aadi.

5. When the matter came up on 24.08.2009, this Court directed the respondents (HR & CE Department) to specify their stand by filing an affidavit relating to the route by which the car can be taken through.

6. A common counter affidavit dated 27.08.2009 was filed by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Villupuram. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi has also filed a counter affidavit dated 24.08.2009.

7. In view of the interconnectivity between the two writ petitions, they were heard together and a common order is passed.

8. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.16762/2009), it was stated that the Arulmighu Poottai Mariamman Temple is an age old temple and was in existence for over a century. Poojas were performed in the said temple as per Agamas. All religious festivals, including the procession of the deity, Car festival were performed strictly as per the custom. One of the main festival of the temple is the annual "Ther Thiruvizha" (car Festival) which is conducted during the Tamil month of Aadi. As per Agama Sastras, various steps are to be taken to perform the Poojas and rituals. On the last Friday of the Tamil month of Aadi, the procession of the Deity will be taken through streets will be preceded by fire works and other religious activities. The deity will be decorated and will be on the Temple Car and taken through the customary route namely, Middle Street West, North Street and the street behind the temple, Mettu Street. It was also taken to Sembarampattu village through north, east, south and west streets. After a night halt at Sembarampattu village, the deity will return to the Poottai village via Mettu Street and will reach the temple. It is claimed that from time immemorial, the deity is taken on procession in the Temple Car only on the chartered route. The said street is also called as the Car Street. The villagers irrespective of caste, creed, community and gender are allowed to offer worship without any discrimination. According to the petitioner-Trustees, certain persons in the Village are obstructing the customary route and are claiming that the deity should also be taken through their streets in the village Colony.

.9. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kallakurichi called for a Peace Committee in view of the apprehension of breach of law and order. A Peace Committee Meeting was held on 22.07.2009 and 27.07.2009. It was claimed that without appreciating the long tradition and custom, by an order dated 27.07.2009, the RDO prohibited the Car Festival and stated that a Committee comprising of Circle Inspector, Sankarapuram, the Revenue Officials and the HR & CE Officials will be formed and they will take a decision regarding the route in which the deity can be taken in a procession.

10. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had contended that the action of the first respondent – RDO is v