2019 (8) TMI 1857 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to extend the darshan time of the holy deity Adhi Athi Varadhar beyond 17.08.2019 (i.e. beyond 48 days) - existence of any universal or Agahama Rule that the deity would be taken out from the sacred pool once in 40 years and would be available only for 48 days for worship? - HELD THAT - Though the petitioners have contended that there are no Agama rules that the darshan can be only for 48 days it is seen from the inscription the period has been specified which represents one mandalam and as per the letter dated 07.08.2019 of the temple Archagas and Sthanikars extracted supra as per the agama rules darshan should be only for 48 days i.e. one mandalam and there should not be any change. If there is a change it would be against the agama rules. Immersion should be done after 48 days of darshan. Thennachariya Dharishana Sabha has also given their opinion vide their letter dated 31.07.2019 that the Idol of Sri Athi Varadhar should be immersed after the completion of 48 days as on 17.08.2019 as per the custom and usages which are prevalent from time immemorial. Thus the respondents have contended that darshan of Sri Athi Varadhar is for only 48 days and immersion is as per custom and usages. Contention of the petitioner that there is no agama rule as regards period of darshan is disputed. It is trite law that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudged in writ proceedings. The aspects as to whether there are agama rules or note as to when the deity should be taken out from the pool and how many days it should be kept for dharshan can be adjudicated only before a Competent Civil Court and not in this writ petition. A prerogative writ like a Mandamus cannot be demanded ex debito justiatiae but it can be issued by the court in its discretion for which it must be shown that there is a non discretionary legal duty upon the authority against whom the relief is sought for and that the person approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to prove that he has a legal right to be enforced against the authority for the failure of performance of a legal or statutory duty by the authority against whom the relief is sought for. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Extension of darshan time for the deity Adhi Athi Varadhar beyond 48 days.
2. Violation of religious practices and customs.
3. Authority and jurisdiction of the District Collector versus temple administration.
4. Alleged violation of fundamental rights under Article 25 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extension of Darshan Time:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to extend the darshan time of the deity Adhi Athi Varadhar beyond 48 days, arguing that due to the heavy rush, many devotees could not worship the deity, affecting their right to religious practice. They contended that there is no strict Agama rule mandating the deity's availability for only 48 days and cited historical instances where the darshan period was extended.

2. Violation of Religious Practices and Customs:
The respondents, including the temple administration and religious authorities, argued that the established custom and usage dictate that the deity should be available for darshan only for 48 days, representing one mandalam. They emphasized that any extension would violate Agama rules and established customs. The temple's Archagas and Sthanikars, along with the Thennachariya Dharishana Sabha, reiterated that the deity should be re-immersed after 48 days as per tradition.

3. Authority and Jurisdiction:
The petitioners questioned the District Collector's authority to decide on the festival's duration, asserting that such decisions should be made by the temple's Executive Officer. The respondents clarified that the temple administration, based on customs and religious practices, has the authority to decide the duration of the darshan period. The court noted that the District Administration acted on the advice of temple authorities and the Assistant Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.

4. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The petitioners claimed that their fundamental rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (equality before the law) of the Constitution were violated due to the restricted darshan period. The court, however, found no merit in this argument, stating that the petitioners could not seek an extension of the darshan period as a matter of right. The court emphasized that over one crore devotees had already had darshan, and the petitioners' inability to worship on a specific day did not constitute a violation of their fundamental rights.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the temple administration's decision to adhere to the established custom of a 48-day darshan period. The court emphasized that matters of faith and religious customs should not be interfered with unless there is a clear violation of legal rights. The court also highlighted that disputed questions of fact, such as the interpretation of Agama rules, are not suitable for adjudication in writ proceedings and should be resolved in a competent civil court.