Case Note & Summary
The appellants, who were writ petitioners, sought a mandamus directing the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, District Forest Officer, and temple authorities to permit them to reach the Velliangiri Andavar Temple via an exclusive route from Iruttupallam Junction through Semmedu Village and the Reserve Forest Road, claiming a right to religious practice on Shivarathiri night. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to this intra-court appeal. The Forest Officer submitted that a traditional route already exists and two routes are available: one via Madampatti-Thondamuthur-Coimbatore Siruvani Road then Pooluvapatti-Senmedu road, and another from the same Siruvani Road after Madampatti to Semmedu-Irrutu Pallam. The Court noted that the area is an elephant corridor and eco-sensitive, requiring coordination between the Forest Department and police to protect public interest and maintain the forest's serenity. In exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court held that when two routes are already available, it need not entertain the petitioners' claim for an exclusive alternate route. The appeal was dismissed with no costs, affirming the Single Judge's order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Mandamus - Article 226, Constitution of India - The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition seeking a mandamus for an exclusive alternate temple route, holding that when two existing routes are available, the court need not interfere under Article 226; emphasized the need to protect eco-sensitivity and elephant corridor, and directed the District Administration to coordinate smooth travel. Held, no infirmity in the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitioners are entitled to a mandamus directing the respondents to permit them to reach the Velliangiri Andavar Temple via an exclusive alternate route through the reserve forest.
Final Decision
The Writ Appeal was dismissed. The Court found no infirmity in the Single Judge's order. It directed the District Administration to coordinate for smooth travel of pilgrims and held that the route is very much available. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- judicial review under Article 226
- mandamus
- availability of alternative routes
- eco-sensitive area protection
- coordination between Forest Department and police
