Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15205 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 August, 2024
W.A(MD)No.1303 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.1303 of 2024
T.Chinnadurai,
S/o.Thirugnanasambandam,
Hereditary Trustee,
Sri Vembadi Sudalai Mada Swamy Temple,
Kottarakurichi Village,
Srivaikundam Taluk,
Thoothukudi ... Appellant/Writ petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Tuticorin District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchendur,
Tuticorin District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Eral Taluk,
Tuticorin District.
4.Mr.D.Muthukaruppan @ Velayutham
5.T.Rajendran
6.D.Durai
7.D.Vaikundaramasamy @ Kumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
common order dated 09.07.2024 in W.P(MD)No.9400 of 2024.
For Appellant : Mr.K.K.Samy
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
W.A(MD)No.1303 of 2024
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.SRA.Ramachandran,
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order of the learned single
Judge issuing certain directions in respect of management of a private
temple.
2. Admittedly, the right of Trusteeship of the temple is subject matter
of proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A peace committee
meeting was conducted during the pendency of the second appeal
regarding the right to manage the temple and certain agreement had been
reached between the parties. Complaining that the said agreement has
been violated, the instant writ petition came to be filed.
3. The learned single Judge has elaborately considered the scope of
the agreement between the parties and had issued certain directions.
Aggrieved, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.9400 of 2024 is on appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. We find that the very writ petition is misconceived. A right to
manage a private temple is neither a public right nor there is any public
issue involved to enable this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. If the parties had agreed upon to certain
interim arrangements pending final conclusion of the civil proceedings and
if there is any violation, it will be open to the parties to approach the
competent Court where the civil proceedings are pending. In our
considered opinion, invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is total misconception. The jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is not to resolve private disputes.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed. No Costs.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
06.08.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet: Yes
PM
To:
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Tuticorin District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District.
3.The Tahsildar, Eral Taluk, ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tuticorin District.
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
pm
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
06.08.2024
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!