Madras High Court
Manimaran @ Murugan vs The District Collector on 7 August, 2023
W.P(MD) No.14824 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :07.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P(MD)No.14824 of 2021
Manimaran @ Murugan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector
Thoothukudi District
2. The Tahsildhar
Tiruchendur Taluk
Thoothukudi District
3. The Inspector of Police
Tiruchendur Police Station,
Thoothukudi District
4. A.Raj
5. A.Sangar @ Sanga Tamilan
6. C.Johnraj @ Sivaraja
7. K.Pattanimuthu ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents 1 to 3 to take suitable action as against the act of
excommunication done by the respondents 4 to 7 by considering the
complaint dated 11.01.2021.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.14824 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr. D.Venkatesh
For R1 to R3 : Mr. R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R4 & R7 : Mr.A.Robinson
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of
Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take suitable action as
against the act of excommunication done by the respondents 4 to 7 by
considering the complaint dated 11.01.2021
2. According to the petitioner there was a Amman temple
situated in his street and from the year 2012 with the help of his
community people he did repairing work and kumbabishekam was
also conducted. The accounts details of the said events were
scrutinized on 24.10.2017 in the presence of administrators and the
community people. Already the respondents 4 to 7 have enmity with
the petitioner not only on administrative reason bust also on personal
score. In order to finalize the repayment of borrowal and the excess
payment a meeting was organized on 12.11.2017 and at that time the
respondents 4 to 7 proclaimed that they are going to take care of the
administration of the temple and thereafter they gave complaint
before the Revenue Divisional Officer and it was forwarded to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.14824 of 2021
third respondent. As per the instructions of the Revenue Divisional
Officer the accounts were finalized in the presence of third
respondent. Thereafter from the year 2018 the respondents 4 to 7
intended to ex-communicate the petitioner and his family members
and close relatives and they refused to collect tax. On 26.08.2018 and
29.08.2018 during temple festival the petitioner was threatened and
his family members were also excommunicated and not allowed to
take part in the temple festival. Based on that First Information
Report has been registered in Crime No.265 of 2018 for the offences
under Sections 147,294(b),506(i) of IPC. On 29.12.2019 and the
petitioner and his relatives appeared before the second respondent
and gave representation with regard to excommunication. The
petitioner also made complaint before the first respondent on
11.01.2021 and the same was forwarded to the second
respondent ,but no action was taken. Hence he has filed the present
petition to consider the representation dated 11.01.2021.
3. No counter was filed by the respondents.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner has given complaint before the official respondent
for excommunication dated 11.01.2021, thereafter peace committee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.14824 of 2021
meeting was convened and three resolutions were passed and even
after the peace committee meeting the respondents have not followed
the resolutions and still excommunication continues and the
respondents refused to receive tax from the petitioner, thereby he has
sent communication to the respondents and the same was not
considered. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
M.Sudakar .vs. V.Manoharan and Others in Civil Appeal No.
10319 of 2010.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents
contended that already peace committee meeting was conducted and
there was some dispute with regard to collection of amount and
further the petitioner has not paid arrears of tax and no
excommunication was made by the respondents. The petitioner only
refused to pay arrears of tax for the temple
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
official respondents would contend that there was a dispute between
the parties with regard to the administration of the temple and this
petitioner was only managing the temple and thereafter new
committee was formed. Thereafter the petitioner gave complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.14824 of 2021
before the police and the police also registered the First Information
Report against the respondents and other and the same in pending in
STC No.914 of 2019. Already peace committee meeting was
conducted and in the said meeting both the parties agreed to receive
tax and they have not excommunicated the petitioner , hence the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
8. On perusal of the record it is observed that there was a
dispute between the parties with regard to the administration of the
temple and already the petitioner gave complaint and the same was
considered by the official respondents. Peace committee meeting was
also conducted and as per the peace committee meeting both parties
agreed to settle the matter and the private respondents also agreed to
receive tax from the petitioner. The respondents stated that they have
not excommunicated the petitioner and further as per the resolution of
the peace committee the petitioner has to remit the account to the
respondents. According to the petitioner the said resolution have not
been followed by the respondents and still excommunication is
continuing and the respondents refused to receive tax and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.14824 of 2021
refused to see the accounts. Thereby he prayed that though the earlier
representation was considered this Court can mould the relief for
which he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of M.Sudakar .vs. V.Manoharan and Others in Civil Appeal No.
10319 of 2010, wherein it is held as follows:
“The power to mould relief is always available to the Court possessed
with the power to issue high prerogative writs. In order to do complete justice it
can mould the relief, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In
the facts of a given case a writ petitioner may not be entitled to the specific relief
claimed by him but this itself will not preclude the Writ Court to grant such other
relief which he is otherwise entitled. Further delay and latches does not bar the
jurisdiction of the Court. It is a matter of discretion and not of jurisdiction. The
learned Single Judge had taken note of the relevant facts and declined to dismiss
the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches”
9. On a careful reading of the above judgment it is clear that
under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India this Court can
mould the relief of the petitioner. Since the representation of the
petitioner was already considered by the official respondents and
peace committee meeting was also conducted between the parties and
in the peace committee meeting both parties agreed to settle the
matter no further order from this Court is required. However the
learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the respondents
are still refusing to receive the tax for temple from the petitioner but
the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.14824 of 2021
represented that they are ready to receive the tax for temple with
arrears, but the petitioner is not ready to pay the arrears of tax. The
representation of the counsel for the private respondent is recorded.
10. In view of the above representation made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and the private respondents are
ready to collect tax amount from the petitioner with arrears it is
appropriate to fix a time for payment of temple tax. Accordingly the
petitioner can approach the respondent 4 to 7 private respondents
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order and the respondents 4 to 7 can collect the tax and utilize for
temple purpose. If there is any violation the petitioner is at liberty to
approach the authorities concerned according to law. In so far as
accounts is concerned the petitioner has to work out his remedy
through proper channel in accordance with law.
11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed
of. No costs.
07.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.14824 of 2021
To
1. The District Collector
Thoothukudi District
2. The Tahsildhar
Tiruchendur Taluk
Thoothukudi District
3. The Inspector of Police
Tiruchendur Police Station,
Thoothukudi District
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.14824 of 2021
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
W.P(MD)No.14824 of 2021
07.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
