Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 1015
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
V. Mohan Ambalam
Versus
The Thasildar -cum- Executive Magistrate & Others
W.P.(MD)No.2278 of 2009 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2009
Decided On : 06-04-2009
For the Petitioner:S.S. Sundar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1 to R3, K.M. Vijayakumar Additional Government Pleader, R4, R. Alagarsamy, R5, T. Lajapathi Roy, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be used only in exceptional circumstances and should not be a routine measure. The court highlighted the need to balance the exercise of legal rights with the maintenance of public peace and tranquility.
Headnote:
Section 144 - Dispute over temple administration - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 6(20) - Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the legality and correctness of successive orders issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the context of a dispute over the administration of a temple. The court analyzed the judgment and decree of the civil Court, the orders passed by the court in criminal revision petitions, and the legal provisions of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court highlighted the importance of balancing the exercise of legal rights and the maintenance of public peace and tranquility.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Kallar community, sought protection to conduct temple festivals and rituals in a temple managed by the community. The Adi Dravidar community claimed rights to participate in the religious affairs, leading to a series of orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the first respondent, preventing both parties from conducting the temple festival. The petitioner challenged these orders, citing a civil Court judgment recognizing their right to administer the temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent had been issuing orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code without due regard to the civil Court judgment recognizing the petitioner's community's right to conduct the festival. The court also noted that the first respondent had been passing similar orders disregarding the binding judgment and observed that the power under Section 144 should be used only in exceptional circumstances, not as a matter of course.
Issues: The core issue was the legality and correctness of the successive orders issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, considering the dispute over the administration of the temple and the rights of the petitioner's community to conduct the festival.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first respondent's repeated issuance of orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code had the effect of interference in the civil Court decree, preventing the petitioner from executing the decree. The court emphasized that the power under Section 144 should be used only in exceptional circumstances and highlighted the need to balance the exercise of legal rights with the maintenance of public peace and tranquility.
Final Decision: The court modified the impugned order, directing the respondents to permit the conduct of the festival and performance of the rituals in the temple, while ensuring the rights of both communities and maintaining public peace. The court emphasized the importance of social harmony and communal amity.
The legality and correctness of the successive orders issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the core question to be decided in this Writ Petition.
Factual Matrix:-
Petitioner's Version:-
2. The petitioner is a member of Kallar community residing in Therkutheru Village in Melur Taluk of Madurai District. There is a well known temple in the said village known as "Arulmigu Manthai Veeranasamy Temple" and the said temple is managed by the members of the five families belonging to the Kallar community. They have been managing the administration of the temple from time immemorial and the temple was treated as a private temple for all these years. There was a proceeding in O.A.No.89 of 1978 before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In the said original application preferred by the members of Kallar community (Ambalakarar), an order has been passed to the effect that the temple is a private temple belonging to the five families and it was not a public temple as defined under Section 6(20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
3. The members of Kallar community has been celebrating the rituals, like Kappukattu and Pookuzhi in the temple and those rituals were exclusively performed by the members of Kallar community without the intervention or participation by any other community. In the course of time, the members belonging to the Adi Dravidar Community started claiming rights to participate in the religious affairs at the instance of politicians. Since they have been making untenable claims before the revenue officials with respect to the temple, the members of the Kallar community filed a suit in O.S.No.403 of 2004 before the Principal District Munsif, Madurai for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the members of Adi Dravidar Community from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the temple as well as its administration and conduct of festivals. The suit was filed in a representative capacity and the petitioner was the first plaintiff in the said suit. There was an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of the suit and the same was confirmed in a revision filed before this Court. The suit was contested by the members of Adi Dravidar community residing at Therkutheru Village and it was their contention that the temple was a public temple and their predecessors-in- interest were the main Samiyadis of the temple.
4. The suit in O.S.No.403 of 2004 was decreed as per judgment and decree dated 24.01.2007. There was a specific finding in the said judgment that the temple is in the administration of the Kallar community from 1885 onwards and that the defendants have not established their right as claimed by them. The said judgment was confirmed in A.S.No.64 of 2007 by the learned First Additional Sub Judge, Madurai. There was no further appeal and as such, the judgment and decree has become final.
5. In the meantime, the members of Adi Dravidar community has been giving petitions before the police as well as before the first respondent seeking permission to participate in the Pookuzhi festival. In the year 2006, there was a demand from the said community to participate in the Pookuzhi festival to be conducted in March 2006. Since there were rival claims for the conduct of the festival, the first respondent summoned the members of both the communities and ultimately, an order was passed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that five or more members should not assemble in the temple premises from 27.02.2006 to 29.03.2006. Since the first respondent was not prepared to cancel the order, the petitioner and his community people filed a criminal revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.286 of 2006 and the said revision was disposed of as per order dated 28.03.2006 directing the first re
