Authorities must facilitate temple-festival peace while preserving devotees’ right to worship.

The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the authorities to permit Polakkapatti villagers to hold the traditional Mandhai Amman Temple festival at Survey No. 56/2, relying on a representation dated 10 September 2026.

The dispute arose among devotees from 117 families: 11 families had installed a stone and shrine for Karunkachi Amman at Survey No. 55/26, about 300 metres away, and the festivals held at the same time had caused friction.

Earlier efforts by the Revenue Divisional Officer to agree on different time slots had not resolved the dispute.

The authorities submitted that the temple was outside the HR&CE Department’s purview and that their role was limited to attempting to facilitate a solution; the land at Survey No. 55/26 was classified as Sarkar Poramboke. The festival was scheduled for 6 October 2026.

1. Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer should be directed to facilitate a resolution between the devotees to avoid friction during the scheduled temple festival.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction permitting the festival to be conducted according to the customary practice.

The Court stated that a citizen’s or devotee’s right to worship in a temple cannot be deprived either by the Court or by the Revenue Authorities.

It identified no specific statute, precedent, or further legal test as the basis for its decision; the petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court’s operative approach was to balance the interests of devotees by directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to convene a peace committee meeting and attempt to secure agreement on different festival time slots.

Given the recurring friction caused by simultaneous festivals, and the authorities’ limited role in the dispute, the Court did not determine the parties’ competing claims to conduct the festival at particular times.

Instead, it balanced the devotees’ right to worship against the need to prevent disharmony, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to convene a meeting between representatives of the 106 families and the 11 families and to use his good offices to persuade them to accept different time slots. The Court also left it to the officer to decide whether police deployment was needed to maintain law and order.

The Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to convene the peace committee meeting on or before 4 October 2026 and attempt to secure agreement on different time slots; he could also assess the need for police personnel.

The petitioner’s counsel was directed to provide details of the 11 families who had established the Karunkachi Amman shrine. No costs were ordered.