Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for the adjudication of private, customary, or easementary rights involving disputed questions of fact, which are more appropriate for determination by a competent civil court.

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to dispose of the representation dated 07.04.2026 within a time frame, subject to the festival scheduled on 1st week of May 2026.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Uthandi Nagar (Extension), Neravy and that the annual temple festival ''Sithirai Thiruvizha'' has been celebrated for over 30 years. It is contended that despite new streets having been formed, including the petitioner's street, the deity procession is not being conducted through the said street due to objections raised by certain individuals owning to a private property dispute. The petitioner submitted representations dated 07.01.2026 and 07.04.2026, but no orders have been passed till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the District Collector has already issued a direction to the respondents to adhere the previous year’s status quo of the temple procession without fail. It is further submitted that there exist civil disputes between the petitioner and his brother/other villagers regarding the street, and the objections have been raised in that context. Therefore, the issue involves disputed question of fact and private rights, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Admittedly, the relief sought pertains to the right of passage of a deity procession through a particular street. The respondents have raised a specific objection that there is a pending dispute between private parties concerning the said street. The determination of such civil rights, easementary rights, or customary rights regarding the route of a religious procession involves adjudication of disputed question of fact, which cannot be effectively decided in a writ proceeding.

6. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and cannot be invoked for enforcement of private rights or for adjudication of disputed civil rights. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court for declaration of his rights, if any, and for consequential injunction.

7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court having jurisdiction, to work out his remedies in accordance with law, if so advised. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The competent civil Court shall decide the matter on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made herein or by the dismissal of the writ petition. No costs.