Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1857 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking 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.
|