A single judge cannot declare a Division Bench judgment null; judicial discipline mandates adherence to higher court rulings, ensuring consistency in legal interpretations.

JUDGMENT :

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

Both the writ appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 17.05.2024 made in W.P.(MD).No.10496 of 2024. Both these writ appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of these appeals are as follows :

2.1. That one P.Naveen Kumar, S/o. Pitchai Muthu filed a writ petition, i.e., W.P.(MD).No.10496 of 2024, who is the first respondent in these appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein, i.e. Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of him dated 22.04.2024 and grant permission to conduct Annadhanam and Angapradakshinam, i.e., rolling over the plantain leaves left by the devotees after the Annadhanam on 18.05.2024, i.e., on the eve of Jeeva Samadhi day of Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral situate at Nerur Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District.

2.2. The cause of action for filing the said writ petition, according to the first respondent Naveen Kumar as has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition, is that at the village Nerur in Karur District, there is a Sabha called Nerur Sathguru Sadhasiva Brahmendra Sabha. The first respondent / writ petitioner and others are strong devotees of Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral. The Sabha is located nearby the place where the Sadhasiva Brahmendral has attained Jeeva Samadhi. The fourth respondent therein Sabha was organising the Annadhanam festival during the Jeeva Samadhi day.

2.3. As per the prevailing religious custom and practice, the Annadhanam food will be prepared and offered Neivedhiyam to Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral, then the annadhanam food will be distributed to all the devotees irrespective of any caste and religion. After the annadhanam, the plantain leaves used by the devotees are left on the floor. Thereafter the devotees who want to offer their Nerthikadan will roll over the said plantain leaves. There is a strong belief behind this religious custom that Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral himself will eat the annadhanam along with the devotees and rolling over such plantain leaves believed to be used by Sri Sadhasiva Brahmendral will be a blessing for the devotees.

2.4. It was the further case of the said Naveen Kumar, the first respondent herein that, the Annadhanam event will be held during the Tamil month Vaigasi and on the day of Sukhla Dhasami Thithi. Until 2015, the said religious custom was performed uninterruptedly, however during the year 2015, the District Administration has declined to permit the said Annadhanam by referring to an order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No. 7068 of 2015. Due to the non co-operation of the Sabha, the villagers could not pursue the matters closely in the subsequent years.

2.5. It is the further case of the said Naveen Kumar that, now the villagers and devotees together want to perform the Annadhanam on the eve of the Jeeva Samadhi day as many devotees were not able to offer the Nerthikadan for the last few years. Upon perusing the order passed in W.P. (MD).No.7068 of 2015, it revealed that the order has been passed on misrepresentation that one section of people belongs to particular community will roll over in the plantain leaves left by the other community people after partaking Annadhanam, but that is not correct.

2.6. It is the further case of the said Naveen Kumar, the first respondent herein that, there has been no caste discrimination in practising the said religious custom and the devotees in consultation with the Sabha and villagers had scheduled to conduct Annadhanam on 18.05.2024, therefore seeking permission to conduct such Annadhanam followed by rolling over on plantain leaves left after partaking the meals by devotees, on 22.04.2024, the said Naveen Kumar, first respondent had given a representation to the official respondents, i.e., the District Administration who were respondents 1 to 3 in the said writ petition and the said representation since had not