Rights of petitioners limited to worshiping as devotees, not organizing the festival; police protection denied.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court with the following reliefs : (i) issue a writ of Mandamus or such other writ or order directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to give adequate police protection for petitioner and other members of the Ezhava community in Chathamangalam against unlawful obstruction caused by respondents No.3 & 4 or any one acting under them for conducting Pongal Mahotsavam in Chathamangalam Mariyamman Temple on 17.02.2026 and for making arrangements from 15.02.2026 and continuing the celebration till 25.02.2026.

(ii) Dispense with filing the translation of vernacular documents.

2. I have heard Sri.Abdul Raoof Pallipath, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George, the learned Government Pleader.

3. The issue raised in this writ petition relates to the Pongal Mahotsavam to be conducted in connection with the Chathamangalam Mariyamman Temple in Chittoor Taluk. Both the petitioners as well as respondents 3 and 4 claim to be members of the Ezhava community. Respondents 3 and 4 allege that petitioners belong to Chathamangalam SNDP group while the petitioners contend that they belong to Chathamangalam Ezhava community. Irrespective of the said dispute, resolution of which, is not a matter for consideration before this Court, the issue raised in this writ petition is with respect to unlawful obstructions and hindrances being caused in the conduct of the Pongal festival scheduled to be held on 17.02.2026 at the aforementioned temple.

4. When disputes arose between the parties, petitioners 2 and 3 approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate. By Ext.P2 order dated 28.10.2025, the Sub Divisional Magistrate observed that the poojas and other functions in connection with the festival at the temple should be organized and be conducted in a manner that permits participation of both opposing groups, so as to facilitate a peaceful conduct of the festival and to maintain law and order situation. Subsequent to the said order, a dispute arose when the petitioners claimed the right to organize the Pongal festival and hence, respondents 3 and 4 approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

5. The contesting respondents herein claimed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the petitioners were attempting to misinterpret its earlier order (Ext.P2) regarding the right to organize the festival in the temple. The Sub Divisional Magistrate in its clarification order Ext.R3(H) found the contention of respondents 3 and 4 herein to be justified and clarified that all parties can participate in the poojas and other rituals of the festival, but the festival should be organized by the said respondents and not by petitioners.

6. Ext.R3(H) continues to hold the field. It is evident from a reading of the said order that the petitioners do not have any right to organize any festival in the temple and their right is only to worship as devotees which is similar to that of any other devotees, and participate in the festival.

7. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that respondents 3 and 4 had no objection at all on the petitioners worshiping and participating in the temple festival while their objection was solely regarding the conduct of poojas and other rituals by the petitioners.

8. Considering the nature of orders issued as Ext.P2 and Ext.R3(H), I am of the view that the claim of the petitioners to conduct festival is contrary to the clarification issued in Ext.R3(H) orders. Therefore, police protection cannot be granted to permit the petitioners to conduct the Pongal Mahotsavam at the temple. However, respondents 3 and 4 shall permit the petitioners to participate in the temple festival and the pooj