ORDER :

P.T.Asha, J.

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant permission to Adal Padal Program to be held on 29.05.2023 at about 06.00 p.m. and Karakattam Program to be held on 31.05.2023 at about 06.00 P.M. in connection with the Vaikasai Festival at Arulmighy Sri Seva Muthumariamman Temple at Poonkovil Street, Alathoor, Trichy District - 620 011, based on the Petitioner's representation dated 17.05.2023.

The petitioner, who claims to be a member of the Organising Committee of Arulmighu Sri Selva Muthumariamman Temple at Poonkovil Street, Alathoor, Trichy District, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction that this Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Mandamus to the respondents to grant permission to conduct a cultural program (Adal Padal) to be held on 29.05.2023 at about 06.00 p.m. and karakattam program to be held on 31.05.2023 at about 06.00 p.m. in connection with the Vaikasi Festival at the said temple.

2. The petitioner would contend that this temple is nearly 50 years old having rich and cultural heritage and that the Vaikasi Festival is an age old function that is being conducted in the aforesaid temple. For the current year, the festival is proposed to be held between the period from 21.05.2023 to 01.06.2023. One of the features of the function is a cultural event on 29.05.2023, which is styled as “Adal Padal” and a karakattam program on 31.05.2023. The petitioner would submit that he has made a representation on 17.05.2023 vide registered post to the respondents to grant permission to conduct the said cultural festival which has not been considered to date. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. This petition has been filed before the Bench categorising it as a “Public Interest Litigation”. We are at loss to understand as how the conduct of a dance program in a temple in a small village would partake the character of a public interest. Further, the person, who has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court is one of the Organisers and the affected party. Considering the fact that today, the Bench has over 84 and odd cases of the same genre, we have decided to examine the following factors:

(a) whether a public interest is involved in the aforesaid cases; and

(b) whether the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court has to be exercised in a matter of this nature.

5. Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been incorporated in the constitution by the framers of the constitution to ensure power to every High Court exercising jurisdiction in their respective territories to issue to any person or authority including an appropriate case any Government, Writs in the nature of a Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part-3 for any other purposes. Part-3 of the Constitution deals with “fundamental rights” and a violation of these rights would give a right to the affected party to approach the highest Court of the State by way of a writ petition invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The failure to grant permission (not even a refusal) to conduct a cultural event does not constitute a violation of a fundamental right as guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the invocation of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too, in the guise of a Public Interest Litigation appears to be erroneous.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, there is no iota of a pleading that a fundamental right has been breached. Therefore, on this ground, the writ petition appears to be misconceived.

7. Let us now examine as to whether the issue on hand involves a public interest. In the judgment in People's Union for Democratic Rights and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1982) 3 SCC 235,