Case Note & Summary
The intra‑court appeal arose from an order of a learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition that sought a writ of mandamus. The appellants, who were the original writ petitioners, are pilgrims claiming a right to religious practice. They filed W.P. No. 5497 of 2025 praying for a direction to respondents 1 to 4—the District Collector, the Superintendent of Police, the District Forest Officer, and Arulmighu Velliangiri Andavar Thirukoil—to ensure that the petitioners and their family are permitted to reach the Vellingiri Andavar Shiva Temple situated at Velliangiri Malai, Semmedu, Coimbatore District, without hindrance. The relief sought included earmarking an exclusive route from Iruttupallam Junction on the Coimbatore Siruvani Road, passing through Semmedu Village and travelling through the Reserve Forest Road starting from the Mullangadu Forest Check Post, to reach the temple. The purpose was to attend the 4 Kala Poojas and have darshan of Lord Vellingiri Shiva on the Shivarathri Night, based on representations dated 27.01.2025 and 03.02.2025 that had not been acted upon. The learned Single Judge considered the issues on merits. The Forest Officer submitted that there had been a traditional route used by pilgrims for years to reach the temple and that two routes were available to Semmedu. One route leads through Madampatti on the Coimbatore Siruvani Road, and another goes via Irrutu Pallam. The Single Judge observed that the Forest Department and the Superintendent of Police must coordinate to make necessary arrangements, noting that the area is an elephant corridor, a reserve forest, and that its eco‑sensitivity, purity, and temple serenity must be protected under various enactments. The writ petition was dismissed. On appeal, the Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge ’s reasoning. The Court held that when two routes are already available, the District Administration has to coordinate for smooth travel of pilgrims, and that in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it need not entertain a claim such as the one made by the petitioners. The writ appeal was consequently dismissed, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writs - Mandamus - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Discretionary Judicial Review - The writ petitioners sought a mandamus to direct the respondents to earmark an exclusive route through the reserve forest to the Vellingiri Andavar Temple for the Shivarathri night. The Forest Officer submitted that there was already a traditional route used for years, and the Court noted two routes were available. Held, that the District Administration must coordinate for smooth travel of pilgrims, and in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226, such a claim need not be entertained when alternative arrangements exist (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to use an exclusive route to the Vellingiri Andavar Temple when two traditional routes are already available.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. The Court found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s order. When two routes are available, the District Administration has to coordinate for smooth travel of pilgrims, and the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 need not entertain such a claim. No costs. All connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- judicial review under Article 226
- discretionary remedy
- no mandamus when alternative routes exist
- coordination between Forest and Police Departments
