A. MURUGANANTHAM Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 not to grant any permission to conduct any religious festival within the premises of District Court campus now and in future.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is holding the post of the District Secretary of Dravidar Kazhagam, Madurai and there was a paper publication in Tamil Newspaper Dinakaran on 23.04.2018, from which the petitioner came to know that on 29.04.2018, during the Kallalagar festival at Madurai, the District Bar Association was proposed to have a Mandagapadi i.e the place where Kallalagar deity visits for conducting poojas within the District Court campus and for the same, a resolution has been passed by the District Bar Association on 09.04.2018 and as a consequential order, the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has also passed an order, confirming the Mandagapadi arrangement inside the District Court Campus and permitting for the same. Further, the petitioner contended that the said resolution and the consequential order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is in violation of the provisions of Constitution of India. Since our country is a secular country and the same was emphasized in the Constitution and since the Kallalagar festival is celebrated by specific religion and in such case, passing resolution by District Bar Association for conducting festival, which was acknowledged by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is a pure violation of Constitution. If the present function is permitted to be conducted, the same will have great discrimination on other religions and it will lead to domination of particular religion in future.

(3.) The fourth respondent, Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, filed his counter, wherein, he has questioned the locus standi of the writ petitioner to file the writ petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has not stated that he is filing the writ petition as pro bona publico. In paragraph No.4 of the counter filed by the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent has specifically stated that the request made by the Bar Association, dated 03.04.2018 was forwarded by the Principal District Judge, Madurai to the Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department on 04.04.2018 and the said request was considered by the Fit Person of the temple on 09.04.2018 and a resolution was passed to that effect that the request of the Madurai Bar Association shall be accepted without receipt of any donation and the Mandagapadi shall be on the western side and outside the District Court campus in front of entrance to Race Course ground. Based on the said resolution, Madurai Bar Association had paid its yearly Mandagapadi Kattalai amount on 20.04.2018. The fourth respondent has specifically stated that the place identified for visit of Arulmigu Kallagar is outside the District Court campus and not within the District Court campus or in the alleged news published in the newspaper. The fourth respondent has also stated that the District Court administration has nothing to do with the aforesaid Mandagapadi and it was granted only in favour of Madurai Bar Association.