The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following specific procedures for conducting temple festivals to avoid conflicts and maintain law and order.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 herein to take appropriate action either by conducting a Peace Committee Meeting between the rival factions of the worshippers and to conduct the festival and car procession of Sri Mariamman, Sri Aravayee Amman and Sri Bagavathi Amman, situated at Senappadi Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District, as per their usual practice, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 06.05.2022.)

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.,

1. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This Writ Petition is styled as pro bona publico seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take appropriate action by conducting a Peace Committee Meeting between the rival factions of the worshippers and to conduct the festival and car procession of Sri Mariamman, Sri Aravayee Amman and Sri Bagavathi Amman, situated at Senappadi Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District, as per their usual practice, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 06.05.2022.

3. The case of the petitioner is that there are 185 families in Senappadi Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District and they used to celebrate festival for Sri Mariamman, Sri Aravayee Amman and Sri Bagavathi Amman during the Tamil month of Chithirai. Usually, the date and the manner in which the above festival has to be conducted will be decided by the Executive Committee constituted under the supervision of the Revenue Officials and the Police Officials, as per the Peace Committee Meeting held in the year 1993. In the year 2018, the election of the Executive Committee, without the supervision of the Revenue Officials and the Police Officials, was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a suit in O.S.No.120 of 2018 before the District Munsif Court, Karur and the same was pending. Thereafter, a Peace Committee Meeting was conducted on 28.05.2019, by which, the 4th respondent Tahsildar refused to give permission for conducting the temple festival separately by two factions citing law and order problem. Thereafter, due to COVID – 19 lock down, no festival was conducted.

4. On 14.04.2022, the Members belonging to the rival faction arbitrarily elected themselves as the Executive Committee Members to conduct the temple festival. Hence, the petitioner along with others made a representation to the respondents 4 and 5 not to grant permission till a mutual agreement was arrived. Based on the said representation, the fourth respondent Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 29.04.2022, fixed a Peace Committee Meeting to be held on 06.05.2022 at 3.00 p.m. But, the sixth respondent has obtained an order in W.P.(MD).No.8611 of 2022, dated 29.04.2022, for conducting the temple festival and car procession from 08.05.2022 to 10.05.2022 and from 18.05.2022 to 20.05.2022 and a drama on 18.05.2022, by suppressing the civil dispute, Peace Committee Order and the proposed Peace Committee Meeting. Immediately, the petitioner along with others made their objection by way of representation to the respondents 1 to 5 on 06.05.2022 and the same is pending. But, the sixth respondent has started for conducting second phase of Sri Mariamman Temple Festival from 18.05.2022 to 20.05.2022. Therefore, without any other option, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

5. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 5, Mr.N.Muthuvijayan, learned Special Government Pleader appeared and fairly submitted that already they have called for a Peace Committee Meeting on 16.05.2022 and they will conduct the Meeting and the issues between the petitioner and the rival parties would be sorted out in the Peace Committee Meeting. For the said Peace Committee Meeting, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police, the petitioner, the sixth respond