KUNNUDAIYAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the second respondent dated 31.05.2011 and consequently, seeking for a direction to the 3rd respondent to provide adequate police protection for the smooth and peaceful celebration of annual festival of Sree Maha Mariyamman Temple, Chinthamanipatti, Keelapaguthi Village, Kadavur Taluk on 14, 15, 16 June 2011.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is the heredity priest of Sree Maha Mariyamman Temple, Kelepaguthi Village, Chinthamanipatti, Kadavur Taluk. THE said temple is an ancient temple aged about 300 years. THE said village consists of nearly 170 families and all of them are joining together every year to celebrate the temple festival, without any difference of opinion. THE annual celebration of the temple festival falls in the month of Vaikasi. THE 4th respondent is the erstwhile panchayat president of the said village and was participating in the said village festival all these years without making any demur. One Karuppannan, the uncle of the 4th respondent attempted to construct a private temple in a Government land, which is lying adjacent to the said Sree Maha Mariyamman Temple. THE said act of the Karuppannan was vehemently objected by the village people. THE District Collector, Karur, also based on the demand of the village people, restrained the said Karuppannan from constructing the other temple. A suit in O.S.No.234 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai, restraining the said Karuppannan from constructing the temple was also filed by the worshippers of the Sree Maha Mariamman Temple. An interim injunction was granted in the said suit on 24.03.2011. In view of such development, the 4th respondent and all his relatives nurtured grudge against the Sree Maha Mariamman Temple and started giving trouble to the administration of the said temple. When the people of the village, as usual, proposed to conduct the temple festival during the first week of June, the 4th respondent made false complaint before the 3rd respondent and based on the same, the 3rd respondent referred the matter to the second respondent. A peace committee was formed by the second respondent. In the peace committee meeting held on 17.05.2011, the elders of the village participated and extended their full co- operation to maintain peace in the village. It was also stated before the second respondent during the peace committee meeting that the temple festival has to go on as per the schedule and more particularly, the petitioner herein submitted before the second respondent that he is not very particular about presiding over the temple festival and is concerned only in solving the dispute. However, the 4th respondent refused to heed any of the requests made by the villagers and created uproar with a sole aim not to allow the temple festival to go on. Consequently, the peace committee failed in its attempt to bring peace in the village. As the festival to the Sree Maha Mariamman Temple has to take place without any break, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 24.05.2011, seeking for protection to the celebration of the temple festival by apprehending of untoward incidents at the hands of the 4th respondent. Instead of providing the police protection for the conduct of the festival, the second respondent passed the impugned order restraining the entire festival celebration of Sree Maha Mariamman Temple till the settlement of dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Hence, the petitioner approached this court by way of this writ petition challenging the said order of the second respondent, dated 31.05.2011.

(3.) THIS Court after ordering notice of motion and after the parties have entered their appearance, by order dated 20.06.2011, referred the matter to Mediation Centre and directed the parties to appear before the same on 24.06.2011. The Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench taken the matter as Mediation Case No.210 of 2011 and submitted a report on 10.11.2011, by stating that the mediation had failed despite the mediation was held on several occasions. It appears from the said report that neither the 4th respondent nor his counsel was present before the Mediator. Even when the matter was posted before this Court on several occasions, the counsel for the 4th respondent was not present continuously and no counter affidavit also has also been filed by the 4th respondent.