The established right of the petitioner and his community people to worship the deity at the temple influenced the court's decision to provide necessary police protection for the festival.

1. The writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to give necessary police protection to the Masi Mahasivarathiri Festival to be celebrated by the petitioner and his community people in Arulmighu Kattu Karuppanasamy Kovil, Maravankulam Village, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District from 24.02.2017 to 26.02.2017 and connected festivities.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petitioner belongs to Vannar community and the fifth respondent belongs to Pillaimar community. He further submitted that Arulmighu Kattu Karuppanasamy Kovil, Maravankulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, is a family temple of the present petitioner, but the fifth respondent and their men abducted the petitioner and their community people to worship their family temple. Hence, the present petition is filed by the present petitioner seeking police protection.

4. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent would mainly contend that the fifth respondent has no objection for worshipping the deity by the petitioner along with his community people, but the present petitioner without any right claiming to conduct and celebrate the temple festival with their community people, which was already decided in a series of civil cases, that the petitioner and their community people are only allowed to worship the deity and they have no right to celebrate the temple festival. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent produced a series of documents to show that the petitioner and his community people has no right to celebrate the temple festival along with fifth respondent community, except worshipping the deity in the temple. He produced a copy of the order made in O.A. No. 19 of 2002, by the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE, Madurai, reads as follows:

“TAMIL”

5. Subsequently, the present petitioner filed a W.A. (MD) No. 305 of 2006 and this Court passed an order on 16.02.2016, which reads as follows:

“12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that interests of justice would be met by passing the following order:

(i) The first respondent is directed to provide adequate and effective police protection towards enabling the petitioner as all other villagers, including the 5th respondent and persons belonging to his community, observing the conduct of Masi Maha Sivarathiri festival at Arulmighu Katty Karuppanasamy Kovil, Maravankulam Village, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District as also connected festivities between 06.03.2016 and 09.03.2016 (both days inclusive).

(ii) The second respondent Superintendent of Police, Madurai District (Rural), Madurai shall supervise the police protection arrangements made by the first respondent.

(iii) This order is not to be read as determinant of rights of parties.

(iv) The above order is subject to the appellant swearing to a notarised affidavit, undertaking that members of the appellant community would conduct themselves in a peaceful and law abiding manner and would in no manner hinder or obstruct the participation of the members of the rival community.

13. The Writ Appeal is ordered accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed?

6. Subsequently a review application in Rev. Appln. (MD) No. 33 of 2016 in the W.A. (MD) No. 305 of 2016 was filed by the present petitioner and this Court by order dated 07.03.2016, ordered as follows:

“31. In the result, order of the writ appeal No. 305 of 2016, dated 16.02.2016, is modified only to the appointment of an Archaka by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The review application is allowed only to the extent as indicated. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

32. Having regard to the reasoning and observation of this Court, we only hope that inst