CONT P No. 967 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-06-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CONT P No. 967 of 2025 E.N. Madeswaran, Petitioner Vs 1. Mrs. S. Suganthi, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Office, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. 2. S. Krishnaraj, The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Prasanna Venkatramanaswamy Temple, Pandamangalam Post, Paramathivelur Taluk, Namakkal District. 3.M. Bharath, Son of Muthusamy, D.No.3/114-A, Padukaikadu, Jameen Elampalli Post, Paramathi Velur Taluk, Namakkal District. Respondents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT P No. 967 of 2025 PRAYER Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the Respondents for committing contempt of the Court by willfully disobeying the Order of this Court passed in W.P.No. 8211 of 2025, dated 10.03.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel For respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate ORDER The contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 8211 of 2025, dated 10.03.2025. 2. On the last occasion, after considering the submissions, the matter was posted today (i.e.23.06.2025) by this Court for both sides to produce the relevant materials. Both sides have produced materials, including videographs and photographs. It can be seen that even after the Court’s order, and even after appointing the Assistant Commissioner as the observer, there is constant commotion. The entire proceedings are not conducted amicably by both community members. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT P No. 967 of 2025 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is only one community members who are having the upper hand and they are not even allowing the other person to touch the fk;gk;. Even the timing of the last ceremony was unilaterally changed. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was present at the time and he also participated to some extent. 5. The learned Assistant Commissioner submitted that he tried to conduct the proceedings by involving both communities equally. 6. The entire crux of the order of this Court is to ensure that caste does not form any basis while conducting the ceremonies in the temples and that all devotees are given equal opportunities and protection. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same was not done this year. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT P No. 967 of 2025 7. In view of the conflicting claims that are made, and to avoid conducting a roving enquiry, it is made clear that from next year onwards, the Assistant Commissioner shall act as the observer from the beginning. It shall be ensured that the entire temple festival is conducted in a secular manner, without any reference to caste. If anybody creates commotion or employs one upmanship on the basis of the caste, he should not be permitted, and the entire festival should be conducted with the other devotees. 8. With these directions, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs. 23.06.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT P No. 967 of 2025 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. nsl Cont.P.No.967 of 2025 23.06.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis