WP(MD)/27404/2019 of M.SUBRAMAINAN Vs THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER on 30 December 2019

ORDER

The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking forissuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relatingto the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.5477/2019/U2, dated 19.12.2019 onthe file of the respondent and quash the same.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, thepetitioner belongs to the Thirusuthanthirar Brahmin Community andthe said community people are having privilege in the ArulmiguSubramaniya Swamy temple at Thiruchendur and also having customaryrights in conducting poojas and kaingaryams. Normally, the prasathamis only boiled white rice without adding any salt. After performingpoojas, the prasatham will be distributed to the devotees afteradding turmeric powder and a little bit of salt (Kattisatham) asper the rites and customs of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple,Tiruchendur. At the time of distributing the prasatham to thedevotees by the petitioner, the respondent has made an inspectionhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

and found that the petitioner is distributing the prasatham forcommercial purpose and therefore passed the impugned order, inNa.Ka.No.5477/2019/U2, dated 19.12.2019, by which the respondent notonly restricted the petitioner to distribute the prasatham, but alsofrom entering into the temple, which is against the fundamentalrights guaranteed under Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioneris constrained to file the present writ petition.

3. Mr.M.Muthu Geethaiyan, learned counsel, who takes notice forthe respondent would submit that the very same issue arises verylong back before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.11817 of 2018. ThisCourt, by order, dated 01.06.2018 has given a direction to therespondents therein to regulate this type of malpractise,illegalitiesorirregularities.Inordertogiveeffect/implementation to the directions of this Court, therespondent had conducted an inspection on 19.12.2019 and found thatthis petitioner sold the prasatham to the devotees by collectingmoney, which is against the customs of the temple. Therefore, therespondent passed the impugned order. There is no violation of anystatute or any constitutional right and hence, there is no need tointerfere with the impugned order. Hence, he prays for dismissal ofthis writ petition.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available onrecord.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available onrecord.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to the ThirusuthanthirarBrahmin Community and he is only allowed to perform poojas andkaingaryams. Normally, the prasatham is only boiled white ricewithout adding any salt. After performing poojas, the prasatham willbe distributed to the devotees after adding turmeric powder and alittle bit of salt (Kattisatham) as per the rites and customs of theArulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur. On the fateful day,ie., on 19.12.2019, when the petitioner was distributing theprasatham to the devotees, the respondent inspected and found thathe was selling the prasatham to the devotees for commercial purposeand therefore, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent.Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit thatthe respondent can prevent the petitioner from selling theprasatham, but he has not authority or power to pass the impugnedorder by restricting the petitioner from entering into the templeand performing the poojas.

6. However, on perusal of the impugned order, it would revealthat it is only an interim order by restricting the petitioner toenter into the temple for a period of 30 days in order to give awarning to the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said thateversince the petitioner was restricted from entering into thetemple. Even after reading of the affidavit, it is clear that on theparticular date, the petitioner was selling the prasatham to thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/devotees. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to collect the cost for preparing theprasatham and he has not sold the prasatham. Even as per theaffidavit, the prasatham is only boiled white rice without addingany salt. After performing poojas, the prasatham will be distributedto the devotees after adding turmeric powder and a little bit ofsalt (Kattisatham) at free of cost and the petitioner is permittedto collect the cost for preparing the prasatham (for salt andturmeric powder), which is not exceeding more than Rs.10/-. But, thepetitioner has collected more money from the devotees. Therefore,the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is notacceptable. Even Article 19 of the Constitution of India has givenall the rights to the citizens, but with reasonable restrictions.Since the petitioner has violated the reasonable restrictions, hecannot say that the impugned order passed by the respondent isviolating the Constitution. This Court does not find any violationof Constitution, since the petitioner converting the distribution ofprasatham into commercial commodity and sold the prasatham todevotees. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent iswellwithinhispower,moreparticularly,togiveimplementation/effect to the directions given by this Court, inW.P.(MD).No.11817 of 2018, dated 01.06.2018.

7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit inthis writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly,this Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/-Assistant Registrar (W)

/ /2020Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

PJL/SSL

+1 CC to M/s.M.MUTHU GEETHAYAN, Advocate ( SR-106530[F] dated30/12/2019 )

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/