1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD)No.2668 of 2011 J.Thambirajan ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., Sivagangai. 2.The Manager, Sivagangai Devasthanam, Sivagangai District. 3.R.P.S.Bhuvanalingam 4.Sellam 5.S.Rajendran ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.D-2, 2609, dated 01.03.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Gopalan, for Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Additional Government Pleader. For 2nd Respondent : Mr.T.Srinivasaraghavan For Respondents 3-5 : Mr.Shaji Chellan ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that he is conducting Seventh Day Mandagapadi at Thiruppuvanam Arulmigu Pushpavaneswarar Soundraranayagi Ambal Temple. It is further submitted that earlier there was civil litigation which went upto to second appeal level. In the second appeal, this Court has decided that for the previous year alone, the petitioner was permitted to conduct the 7th day Mandagapadi in the said Temple. It is also further observed that for the future years in respect of conducting the 7th day Mandagapadi which will be decided only by the Devasthanam. Subsequently, the Devasthanam passed orders in respect of conducting the 7th day Mandagapadi in favour of the respondents 3 to 5 for this year. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 2.Notice has been served to all the respective parties. Pursuant to the notice, the second respondent/ Devasthanam has filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 counter affidavit contending that they have only specified for the present year alone as an interim arrangement. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as far as the rights of the parties are concerned in respect of leasing out the property to any person, is totally different issue and therefore, Devasthanam has decided only as to who is to conduct 7th day Mandagapadi. It is further stated that since there is a limited scope in the order passed by the second respondent, nothing is to be interfered with at this stage. 3.The respondents 3 to 5 would only contend that in the second appeal it was decided that the third respondent could conduct the 7th day Mandagapadi but this Court has given a clear finding that it will be decided only by the second respondent. It is further contended that the second respondent passed order in respect of conducting the 7th day Mandagapadi in favour of them and they may be allowed to conduct the 7th day Mandagapadi in this year. 4.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the entire materials available on record. 5.Useful reference could be made to the judgment of this Court made in S.A.No.652 of 2009, dated 12.03.2010 wherein at paragraphs 23 and 24, this Court observed as follows: "23.It is also not in dispute as observed earlier that the appellants/plaintiffs have been performing the Seventh Day Mandagapadi over the years and it has been stated by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the function has been fixed on 21.03.2010. Therefore, taking into consideration the above said facts that the appellants have been performing the said duty over the years and there may not be sufficient time for the first defendant to decide the said issue, the appellants will have to be permitted to conduct the Seventh Day Mandagapadi for this year. It is further observed that for the future years, it is for the first defendant to decide as to whom the right to conduct the Seventh Day Mandagapadi coupled with the enjoyment of the suit property. 24.It is also open to the first defendant to lease the land to any person of their choice separately and get the income and also to give the right to perform the Seventh Day Mandagapadi to any person of their choice in accordance with Ex.B.4. While deciding the said issue, the first defendant will have to consider the case of the plaintiffs, particularly by taking into consideration the fact that they have been performing the Seventh Day Mandagapadi over the years. It is also made clear that while considering the case of the appellants/plaintiffs, it is always open to the first defendant to consider the case of the defendants 2 to 4 as well". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6.Without going into the merits of the submissions made on either side, it is suffice to state that in the judgment of this Court made in second appeal filed by the petitioner it is clearly established that the parties rights will be decided in respect of conducting of 7th day Mandagapadi by the second respondent. The second respondent in the impugned order also very specifically restricted for this year alone that too because of the old age of the third respondent and also taking into consideration in spite of the dismissal of the second appeal, the petitioner was allowed to conduct the 7th day Mandagapadi last year, the respondents 3 to 5 have been permitted to conduct Mandagapadi this year alone. It is also made clear by the second respondent that for the future years, they will make separate detailed order after hearing both the parties. 7.In such view of the matter, it is suffice to state that the respondents 3 to 5 would conduct 7th day Mandagapadi and they would permit the petitioner to take part in the festival. It is also made clear that they will not in any way hinder the petitioner's participation in the festival. The petitioner will have every right to participate in the 7th day Mandagapadi. 8.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Deputy Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., Sivagangai. +1cc to Mr.T.Srinivasaghavan, Advocate Sr.No.6460 +1cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.6252 sms akm/16.3.11 /3p-4c/ Writ Petition (MD)No.2668 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/