1. The petitioners have come up with these writ petitions seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear from performing the Mahakumbabishekam of Sri Ramanathaswamy Temple, Rameswaram, scheduled to be held on 20.1.2016.

2. We have heard Mr. K. Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the first writ petition, Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the second writ petition and Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State.

3. Though the prayers made by the petitioners in both these writ petitions are almost identical, the grounds on which the petitioners seek the postponement of Kumbabishekam, are completely different. The petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 23305 of 2015 seeks the postponement of the Kumbabishekam, primarily on three grounds namely

(a) That a consecration committee popularly known as Thiruppani Committee has not yet been formed.

(b) That the decision to fix the kumbabhishekam on 20.1.2016 was not taken by the Trust Board or the Fit Person, but was dictated by the powers that be, to suit their own requirements.

(c) That January 20, 2016 is astrologically inauspicious and the idol of Ambal Parvathavardhini is also in a damaged condition.

4. We do not think that we can sustain any of these three grounds. No statutory prescription contained either in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the HR & CE Act, 1959) nor the Rules framed thereunder is cited before us by the petitioner in support of the first ground.

5. The reliance placed in this regard, upon Rule 53 of the Management and Preservation of Properties Rules, is completely misconceived. The said Rule is intended to regulate the receipt and expenditure of donations in temples for the purpose of renovation or for other purposes. Since many of the temples, coming under the control of the Department, have a Board of Trustees, the said Rule was enacted to ensure that the Board of Trustees is made accountable for all the donations received and the manner in which they are expended. In this case, there are no allegations that either the Board of Trustees or the Executive Officer of the temple is receiving donations, but not properly accounting for the same and are also expending the same without any type of control. Therefore, the first ground of attack cannot be accepted.

6. The second ground of attack is meaningless. The Board of Trustees has not come up with any objection on the ground that the date fixed for the performance of Kumbabishekam has been thrust upon them by the powers that be, either worldly or heavenly.

7. Assuming that a date for the performance of the consecration has been fixed, only to suit the rulers, even then, we do not know how judicial intervention is possible. A peep into the history of Tamil Nadu would show that several temples were constructed and consecrated by Kings, not necessarily with a view to bring prosperity to the ruled, but to ensure that their dynasty continued to rule forever. Some temples were actually constructed and consecrated for the purpose of ensuring victory for the ruler in times of war. After democracy replaced monarchy, elections have taken the place of war and the tradition of propitiating certain Gods and Goddesses for the purpose of winning, appears to have continued.

8. Perhaps, if a country is ruled by non-believers, they may leave it entirely to the wisdom of the persons in management of temples to decide all these matters. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to venture into these questions and decide whether the date fixed for the ceremony was good for the ruler or for the ruled, if not for the Almighty.

9. The third ground of attack that the date is astrologically inauspicious, is to be stated only to be rejected. We do not know for whom January 20, 2016 is inauspicious. Theists believe that God transcends all dimensions includ