2023 Supreme(Mad) 1640
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
M. Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector Tenkasi & Others – Respondents
W.P(MD) No. 7550 of 2023 & W.M.P(MD) No.7036 of 2023
Decided On : 03-04-2023
For the Petitioner:N. L. Rajah, Senior Counsel. A. Saravanakumar, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, R2 & R4, R5, N. Muthu Vijayan, Special Government Pleader. R3, M. Senthil Ayyanar, Government Advocate. P. Aathi Moolapandian, Advocate, (Unimpleaded respondent.)
The right of every community to worship at a temple and the prohibition of deliberate suppression of necessary parties.
Headnote:
Suppression - Mahakumbabishega festival - A.S.No.99 of 2014 - 1994 (1) SCC 1 = 1994 AIR 953
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to prevent the Mahakumbabishega festival at a temple, alleging deliberate suppression of necessary parties and intentions to disrupt the festival.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions indicated a deliberate attempt to prevent the festival and emphasized the right of every community to worship at the temple.
Issues: Suppression of necessary parties, right to worship, deliberate attempt to disrupt the festival.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the right of every community to worship at the temple and criticized the petitioner's deliberate suppression of necessary parties.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed the smooth continuation of the Mahakumbabishega festival with the assistance of the Tahsildar and police to maintain peace.
JUDGMENT
(PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 2, 4 and 5 to take necessary actions to prevent the Mahakumbabishega festival from being conducted at the Arulmigu Vadabadrakaliamman Temple situated at Pillaiyarkulam Village, Thiruvenkadam Taluk, Tenkasi District, on 05.04.2023.)
1. The matter has been heard through Video-conferencing. Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed the Court through video-conference. Heard also Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent / HR & CE Department. It must also be stated that complaining that necessary parties had not been impleaded, Mr.P.Aathimoola Pandian, learned counsel also advanced arguments.
2. It appears that the issue relating to administration of Arulmigu Vadabadrakalaiamman Temple and Kalyana Veerabathirar Thirukovil at Pillaiyarkulam Village, Thiruvenkadam Taluk, Tenkasi District, had been the subject matter of litigation before the Civil Court. My attention is drawn to an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil in A.S.No.99 of 2014. The respondents therein can be said to be represented in the present writ petition by the writ petitioner, though the locus of the petitioner is very seriously objected to by the learned counsels for the respondents.
3. It is stated that the petitioner resides 3 Kms., away and cannot be termed as a local and it is alleged that the only intention in the filing of the present writ petition is to prevent the Mahakumbabishegam from being conducted in the temple.
4. It is common knowledge that the date for the Kumbabishegam is determined not a day prior to the actual date of Kumbabishegam. But for some strange reason, the petition has been brought up before this Court for consideration today on 03.04.2023 when, in the morning at 07.00 a.m. the preliminary functions towards the Kumbabishegam which is scheduled on 05.04.2023 had already commenced. It either shows that the petitioner is not interested in the Kumbabishegam being conducted or, had notice of it and had deliberately filed the writ petition a day earlier to the date determined for the Kumbabishegam to be done. This attitude of bringing up the writ petition a day prior to the scheduled date, cannot be appreciated by this Court. There must be some leverage given for instructions to be obtained or to examine whether necessary parties have been impleaded. As seen, the petitioner had not impleaded proper parties to the writ petition. There are a string of allegations made against a particular community and even complaining that the temple had been painted in a different colour, but without impleading any member of the said community, though the names are well known as seen from the cause title in A.S.No.99 of 2014.
5. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (died) through LRs. Vs. Jagannath and Others reported in 1994 (1) SCC 1 = 1994 AIR 953, the issue of suppression had come up for consideration before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had widened the concept to state that suppression would also be fraud. It had been held in paragraph No.5 as follows:
"5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishones