1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.553 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 V.Vasudevan .. Petitioner Vs. Arulmighu Nachiar (Andal) Thirukoil, represented by its Executive Officer, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District .. Respondent The writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to take appropriate steps to ensure the visit of Deity Thayar Sri Andal to the Mandagapadi of the petitioner at Door No.25, T.S.No.9, Thirumukkulam North Bank, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District during the current Margazhi Ennaikappu Festival to be concluded on 15.1.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.V.Ramakrishnan ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondent to take appropriate steps to ensure the visit of the Deity Thayar Sri Andal to the Mandagapadi of the petitioner at Door No.25, T.S.No.9, Thirumukkulam North Bank, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District during the current Margazhi Ennaikappu festival to be concluded on 15.1.2011. 2.It is not clear as to how such writ petition is maintainable. The petitioner seeks to enforce his so-called customary right relating to the temple festival. But, however, when the matter came up on 12.1.2011, notice of motion was ordered. Pending the notice of motion, no interim order was given though an application to that effect was filed by the petitioner. The basis on which the petitioner has filed the writ petition is relating to civil court judgment and decree in O.S.No.291 of 2000 dated 29.03.2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur and confirmed by the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur in A.S.No.95 of 2005, dated 24.09.2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Though the petitioner fairly admitted that a second appeal as against the judgment and decree of the courts below is pending before this court in S.A.(MD)No.974 of 2008, the second appeal is yet to be admitted and only notice was ordered. In the absence of any interim order by this court, the petitioner is entitled to seek for the relief. When he attempted to pay the fee, the same was returned by the authorities. Though he could have filed a contempt petition, he may not get any relief. He fairly admitted that execution proceedings are pending in E.P.Nos.44 of 2008 and 67 of 2009 before the lower court. The respondent temple authorities by a communication, dated 04.01.2011 informed the petitioner that during pendency of the second appeal, they have no right to pay any swatanthiram fee for Mandagapadi. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said communication and merely sought for a direction. 4.In any event, since the right of the petitioner was based upon the judgment and decree passed by the lower courts, this court thought it fit that the main second appeal itself was to be disposed of, so that unnecessary controversies between the parties will not arise. Hence with the consent of the parties, the main second appeal was directed to be posted and it was heard. The second appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the courts below have been set aside by this court. It was also held that the petitioner who was the fourth respondent in the second appeal has no legal or enforceable right for instituting the suit. 5.In view of the same, the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, the parties will bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Nachiar (Andal) Thirukoil, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District +1cc to Mr.V.Ramakrishnan, Advocate, Sr.No.41590 vvk ssk/09.12.2011 /3c -2p/- ORDER IN W.P.(MD)No.553 of 2011 28.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/