ORDER

The contempt petition was filed on the ground that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4899 of 2024 dated 27.02.2024, was not complied with.

2.When the matter came up for hearing on 30.8.2024, the affidavit of the respondent was filed. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

5.it is submitted that 13.03.2024, the Sub Inspector of Police called upon both parties i.e., the petitioner/Sankar and counter peitiotners viz.,, Tr.Manohar Naatar, Tr.Saminathan Naatar, Tr.Kothanda Reddiyar, Tr.Senthil Naatar, Tr.K.Senthil Raja, Tr.K.Ravi, Tmt.S.Palaniammal and Tr.M.Murugan for enquiry. Based on that, the petitioner and counter petitioners were appeared before the respondent police and during enquiry which reveals that the counter petitioners stated that till date they not interfere the petitioner to entering into the said temple and always to allow the temple for their workship.

6.I submit that after completing enquiry, the petitioner/M.Sankar enter into the said temple alone, at that time, the Sub Inspector of Police enquired with the petitioner, he replied that the petitioner should be allowed to priest in the said temple and in this connection he should be given police protection. While so, the Sub Inspector of Police advised him to obey the High Court order dated 27.02.2024 to the petitioner and his wife, but the same was not accepted by the petitioner. Hence, the petition enquiry was conducted and closed on 13.3.0224.

7.I submit that during the course of enquiry which reveals that till date the petitioner and his wife entered into the said temple wherein they worship regularly. I submit that the petitioner completely deviate from the order of this Hon'ble Court and now is seeking for a different remedy contrary to his prayer made in the writ petition. The petitioner is taking advantage of the order of this Hon'ble Court in his favour and insisting the 3rd respondent to provide police protection for performing his duties an priest pooja)

and going beyond the scope of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 27.2.2024. It is submitted that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner was duly informed by 3rd respondent that the petitioner can visit the temple along with his wife at all times for worship and for which the 3rd respondent shall afford necessary police protection. Per contra, the petitioner never turned up to vist the Andavar Ayyanar Temple Siruppakkam Village, Cuddalore District with his wife. If the petitioner is visiting the temple only for the purpose of worship with his wife, the 3rd respondent police in always ready to provide police protection to the petitioner as requested and same cannot be given for any other reason.

8.It is further submitted that the petitioner himself has categorically submitted in his pre-contempt notice dated 13.07.2024 that the petitioner's brother and his cousins had filed a suit in O.S.No.47/2021 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Thittagudi seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining him from the peaceful deroting and not to enter into the temple. After elaborate trial, the said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 04.11.2023, as against which an appeal was preferred in A.S.No.20/2023 on the file of Sun Court, Thittagudi and no stay is granted.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not permitted to do pooja in the temple only on the ground that he had married a dalit woman.

N . ANAND VENKATESH, J.

KP

4.When the writ petition was considered, this Court had taken note of the fact that the petitioner and his wife were not even permitted to enter the temple. Therefore, appropriate directions were issued. The right of the petitioner to perform pooja in the temple is an independent issue which cannot gone into in this contempt petition.

5.If the petitioner has the right to conduct pooja, the petitioner has to workout his remedy independently in accordance with law.

6.This contempt petition is accordingly closed.

06.09.20