Availability of alternative remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code and the principle that a writ petition should not be entertained without exhausting these remedies.

MR MARKANDEY KATJU, C.J.

1. These writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 15.06.2005, passed in W.P. No. 13382 of 2005.

2. The prayer in the writ petition was for a mandamus directing the 1st respondent, viz., the Government of Tamil Nadu, to cause registration of the offence against respondents 5 to 10 relating to the destroying of the Sivan Sannadi in Azhagiya Nambirayar Temple, Thirukurunghudi, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, and for investigating the said alleged offence.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner alleged in paragraph -4 that there is an ancient temple called “Azhagiya Nambirayar Perumal Temple at Thirukurungudi in Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. It is further alleged that there are three Sannadis in the said temple for three different deities. It is alleged in paragraph - 5 of the affidavit that the said temple belongs to Jeer Mutt and is under the control and management of the 6th respondent, who is the head of the Je er Mutt. It is alleged that on the request of the 6th respondent, the 5th respondent purportedly carried out renovation work in the said temple, and in the pretext of the said renovation work the 5th respondent demolished the Sivan Sannadi on the night of 01.06.2004, and it has been totally wiped out without any trace. It is further alleged that this was done with the approval of the 6th respondent. It is also alleged that the 5th respondent is now constructing a separate fullfledged temple for the Uprooted Sivalingam in the 4th Pragaram of the temple with great speed, and it is against the Agama Principles of Vaishnava Temples. It is alleged that the action of the 5th and 6th respondents are not only illegal but also affect the religious sentiments of Vaishnavites like the petitioner.

4. In paragraph - 10 of the petitioners affidavit it is alleged that on 05.04.2005, immediately, after the demolition of the Sivan Sannadi, the petitioner gave a complaint before the 3rd respondent - Inspector of Police, Thirukurungudi Police Station, Thirunelveli District to initiate criminal action against the persons who demolished the Sivan Sanndi. The 3rd respondent refused to take the complaint on his file. It is further alleged that Mr. Venu Srinivasan, the 9th respondent in the writ petition, who is a well known industrialist and scion of TVS family which controls large industrial groups in Tamil Nadu consults the 10th respondent in such matters. It is alleged that the 6th, 7th and 8th respondents are recipients directly or indirectly of large contributions from TVS groups of companies and from various descendants of late T.V. Sundaram Iyengar. It is alleged that because of the financial might of the 9th respondent, the 6th, 7th and 8th respondents seem to have accorded their approval for the aforesaid demolition.

5. In paragraph - 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is alleged that respondents 5 to 10 are jointly and severally liable for the destruction of the Sivan Sannadi and are liable to be prosecuted in accordance with law.

6. In the aforesaid writ petition the impugned order was passed directing the State Government to give proper direction to the police authorities to register the offence relating to the destruction of the Sivan Sannadhi in the aforesaid temple against respondents 5 to 10 and investigate the said offence.

7. In the present writ appeals it is alleged that the impugned order was passed without even giving any notice to the appellant and giving him an opportunity of hearing. It is alleged that had the appellant been given an opportunity of hearing he would have placed the correct facts before the Court.

8. We are at this stage not going into the merits of the controversy as we are of the opinion that thE writ petition itself should have been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

9. In our opinion, whenever it is alleged that a criminal offence has b