1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1185 of 2011 P.C.Muthuraja ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Superintendent of Police Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar 2. The Inspector of Police Aruppukkottai Town Police Station Aruppukkottai Virudhunagar District Ashokan (Intervenor in Crl.OP.[MD]No.1185/2001 as per order dated 04.02.2011) ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent to give police protection for celebrating Thy Pongal festival of Shri Pathirakaliamman Temple situated at Maninagaram, Veerapathiran Chettiar Street, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District, to be held on 08.02.2011 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.Murugappan O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction issued to the second respondent to give police protection for celebrating Thy Pongal festival of Shri Pathirakaliamman Temple situated at Maninagaram, Veerapathiran Chettiar Street, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District, to be held on 08.02.2011 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2011. 2. Heard Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents and also Mr.R.Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the Kariyam of the community by name Ambalam S.Kandhan Chettiar, Kariyam M.Ayyavu Chettiar Vagayarakkalukku Pathiyapatta Puliampatti Maninagaram Vaniga Vaisiya Vaniyar Uravinmurai, (Trustee Vaniyar Podhu), whose members are mostly reside in and around Puliampatti Maninagaram and the members of the said community have their own system of Management and the said community https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 known as Uravinmurai use to celebrate Thy pongal festival every year and as usual they have also organised the Thy pongal festival this year to be celebrate on 08.02.2011 and 09.02.2011. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner apprehend that the youngsters may indulge in eve-teasing the girls and ladies and therefore, they require strict police protection to the girls and ladies and also to run the festival for a peaceful manner. He would also submit that a representation has been given on 27.01.2011 to the second respondent to provide police protection for the festival to be held on 08.02.2011 and 09.02.2011. Therefore, he would request the Court to order so for police protection for the purpose of smooth contact of the Thy pongal festival. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit in his argument that the intervenor is the Secretary of Puliampatti Maninagaram, Vaniga Vaisiya Vaniyar Uravinmurai, which was registered as a society in Registration No. 5/03 and from the date of its registration, it has quite smoothly functioning its activities and celebrating the Thy pongal in Shri Pathirakaliamman Temple situated at Maninagaram, Veerapathiran Chettiar Street, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District and it was celebrated during every year in the month of February, which would fall on 08.02.2011 and 09.02.2011. He would further submit in his argument that he was permitted by this Court to celebrate the said Thy pongal with the police protection as per the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD).No. 959 of 2009 and W.P.(MD).No. 1221 of 2010 and accordingly, the intervenor celebrated the Thy pongal festival in a grand manner. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner stated to have been Kariyam of the said Uravinmurai cannot be sustained and they are not entitled to celebrate the said pongal on 08.02.2011 and 09.02.2011. He would also submit in his argument that since the matter is tense, there was a peace committee meeting and it was agreed between the parties to celebrate in a peaceful manner and the petitioner is ready to abide such directions likely to be issued by this Court without affecting the rights of the intervenor. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that both the petitioner and the intervenor are claiming rights to celebrate Thy pongal on the foot of the claim over the Secretaryship and there was a peace committee meeting held in between the parties and it has been agreed by the parties to celebrate the said pongal in a peaceful manner and to permit both the parties to do Abizhegam and Arathana and all other rituals to be done in the course of the said festival. He had also produced the resolutions passed in the peace committee meeting signed by both parties. Therefore, he would request the Court that suitable directions may be issued and the respondent police would give protection to such parties for the peaceful contact of the festival. 6. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. I have also perused the resolutions and agreement reached in peace committee meeting held on 03.02.2011. In the said peace committee meeting, the Revenue Officials and the Inspector of Police along with the representatives of both the petitioner and the intervenor participated and three resolutions were passed and both the groups of the petitioner and the intervenor have signed in the said resolutions. Accordingly, both parties have agreed to leave the dispute to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 decision of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai in the suit pending in O.S.No. 48 of 2004 in respect of the contact of the Thy pongal festival: and till it is adjudicated by the Civil Court and both parties agreed to perform Abizhegam and Arathana in the customary mode and both are entitled for the same and both have agreed not to put up any mike set, panthal, plug board, wall poster, wall advertisements and serial sets during the festival and to abide by the orders passed by this Court in this Petition in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 1185 of 2011. 7. In the wake of the resolutions passed by both the parties, this Court asked the petitioner and the intervenor to have an amicable arrangement for celebrating the Thy pongal on either side in a convenient and peaceful manner. Accordingly, the petitioner party and the intervenor party have agreed to celebrate the Thy pongal of Shri Pathirakaliamman Temple situated at Maninagaram, Veerapathiran Chettiar Street, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District, on 08.02.2011 and 09.02.2011 on the side of the petitioner's party and to celebrate the said Thy pongal of Shri Pathirakaliamman Temple situated at Maninagaram, Veerapathiran Chettiar Street, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District, on 15.02.2011 and 16.02.2011 by the intervenor's party in a peaceful manner. 8. Since both parties agreed to celebrate the Thy pongal festival on different agreed dates and both parties are directed to not to disturb other parties celebration in the said appointed dates, therefore, this Court is inclined to provide police protection to the petitioner's party for the celebration of Thy pongal on 08.02.2011 and 09.02.2011 as asked for by them. 9. In view of the smooth settlement reached in between the parties, the respondents 1 and 2 are also under the obligation to render police protection to the intervenor's party also for the smooth and peaceful celebration of Thy pongal of Shri Pathirakaliamman Temple situated at Maninagaram, Veerapathiran Chettiar Street, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District, on 15.02.2011 and 16.02.2011, and the third respondent/Intervenor is directed to present a representation to the respondents 1 or 2, for such police protection. 10. With the aforesaid direction, this Petition is ordered. vsg Sd/- Assistant Registrar[P&A] /True copy/ To Sub Assistant Registrar 1. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Aruppukkottai Town Police Station Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1 cc to Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Advocate SR.No.4496. +1 cc to Mr.R.Murugappan, Advocate SR.No.4477. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1185 of 2011 3P/6C Dated:04.02.2011 RPB 07.02.2011[I.T.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/