2018 tAtArya petition

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATU1iE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. 12860 of 2018
T.A Ranganathan
S/o T.A Narashimachariar
7-B, West Raja Street,
Kanchipuram - 631502

  1. Government of Tamil Nadu
    Rep. by its Principal Secretary
    Dept. of tourism, culture &
    Religious Endowments, Secretariat,
    Fort St. George, Chennai
  2. The Commissioner,
    HR & CE, Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
    Nungambakkam, Chennai-34
  3. The Executive Trustee,
    ArulmighuDevarajaswamyDevasthanam,
    Little Kanchipuram- 63150 I
    Vs.
  4. Sri TathadesikanThiruvamshathar Sabha
    Rep. by its Secretary, No. 35 Sannadhit Street,
    Little Kanchipuram, Pin. 631 501
    …. Petitioner
    ….. Respondents

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3 rd RESPONDENT

I , N. Thiyagarajan , s/o. Mr. Natarajan Hindu, aged 54 years, residing at Melaraja veedhi, Big Kancheepuram - 631 502. Now temporarily come down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows:

  1. I am the 3rd respondent herein and I am the present Executive Trustee/ Asst. Commissioner in Additional charge from June 2018. I am acquainted with the details and facts of the case involved in this Writ Petition and I am filing this counter with available records in the office.
  2. I submit that this writ petition is not maintainable on facts and law. The writ petitioner being a worshipper has no locus-standi to que$tion the decision of the administration since he has no statutory claim.
  3. I further state that the prayer in the writ petition relates to the custon’I and usage being followed in the temple. As per the averment in the writ petition there is violation of customs and usage which necessitates a petition under sec 63{e) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, before the Joint Commissioner and on this said ground, the writ petition has no legs to stand and has to be dismissed.
  4. I further state that the petitioner has to establish his right in the recitation of sthothrapadam and how is entitled to take the cause on behalf of his fellow thengalais. The averment in para 3 of the affidavit that the respondents in toto without specifying the particular person, should be prevented unauthorized and blasphemous recitals, is to be proved.
  5. I further state that the general accusations against thathachariar, shows how much the petitioner is prejudiced against Thathachariars. The decision mentioned in para 4 of the affidavit has no relevance to the subject matter of the writ petition. The reference of the decree is 1811 regarding the sri sailesa dayapatram will not support the claim in the writ petition. The decisions referred in para 4 & 5 of the affidavit, will not establish the sthothrapadam right of the petitioner and other thengalais.
  6. I further state that it is admitted by the petitioner that as per the findings in A.S.No. 51 of 1904 dated 01.02.1910, Thathachariars have exclusive right to recite sthothrapadam on several occasions including Mohini Vesham utsavam - fifth day festival in bramhotsavam, which is the subject matter of this writ petitioner. Further, the Division bench of our High Court in A.S.No.51 of 1904 accepted the evidence of Mr. Harnett to the effect that the “Thengalai Ghosti breaks up at lyalsathu Mandapam and the evidence on behalf of the defense is not sufficiently strong to rebut this”. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court upheld the contention of the plaintiff. In view of this categorical finding, the petitioner and the Thengalai have no iota of rights in reciting the sthothrapadam, which is exclusively, belongs to Thathachariar Community and the.question of thengalais’ joining as mere worshippers do not arise.
  7. Again the petition in Para 7 of the affidavit, repeats that the thengalais adhyapakam right , when the sthothrapadam right is exclusive right of Thathachariar Community, the comparison has no relevance especially that right has not been assailed till todav,. (~ 2 1:_ I
  8. I submit that the averments in para 8 that discharging the services by thengalais as far as sthothrapadam right is concerned is century old is denied. The thengalais has got only Adhyapakam right and nothing more and the question of violation comes from Thengalais not by Thathachariars or Vadakalai. I further state that one day prior to the Mohini Vesham utsavam - fifth day festival in bramhots3vam i.e., 30th may 2018, Wednesday, at 10.30 pm , there was a meeting at the instance of Thengalais was held before District Revenue Officer of Kancheepuram with respect to the dispute of recital of sthothrapadam and the direction of ORO that the thengalais should not disturb the Thathachariars sthothr,padam Goshti while reciting sthothrapadam from “IYALSATHU Mandapam”, was accepted without any demur. But contrary to that the Thengalais started giving trouble at the Sthothrpadam Goshti of Thathachariar, who were to seek the police help. 9) It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the ~ rit petition as unsustainable with costs. / _ Solemnly Affirmed at Chennai on this day of October 2018 and signed his name in my presence

Before me
Advocate, Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. 12860 of 2018
T.A Rangahathan
S/o T.A Narashimachariar
7-8, West Raja Street,
Kanchipuram - 631502
…. Petitioner
Vs. I. Gov~rnment of Tamil
Nadu Rep .. by its
Principal Secretary ,
Dept. of tourism, culture
& Religious
Endowments,
Secretariat.Fort St.
George, Chennai
& 3 others
….. Respondents

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3 rd RESPONDENT
M/S.K.HARIHARAN
R.TIDRIPURASUNDARI
Advocates for 3rd Respondent