Facts
The petitioner, a worshipper at Shri Arulmigu Ennaiyaalum Kanna Perumal Kovil, sought police protection to fence temple land in Survey No. 62/3, alleging that nearby residents were consuming liquor, littering, and engaging in activities causing inconvenience to worshippers
Source reference: pp. 3–4The petitioner stated that the temple’s Executive Officer had sought police protection and that the petitioner had also submitted representations on 8 and 22 June 2026 without receiving action
Source reference: p. 4In response to the Court’s notice, the respondents submitted that the Executive Officer had initiated steps, and the police stated that they would provide protection for fencing the temple property
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether police protection should be directed for fencing the temple property at the petitioner’s request, when the Executive Officer had independently sought such protection
Source reference: pp. 4–52. Whether fencing could proceed without dispossessing any person from the property under its guise
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226, invoked by the petitioner’s prayer for a writ of mandamus, and the respondents’ undertaking that police protection would be provided for fencing the temple property.
Source reference: pp. 2, 4–5The Court’s direction was limited to facilitating the fencing activity and expressly prohibited dispossession of any person under its guise
Source reference: pp. 4–5Reasoning
The Court found no need to grant protection at the petitioner’s instance because the Executive Officer, who managed the temple, had himself requested it and the police had agreed to provide appropriate protection
Source reference: p. 5The Court confined the protection to fencing the temple property, required completion by 20 November 2026, and safeguarded against any person being dispossessed under the guise of that work.
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The petition was ordered on the above terms.
The respondent-police were directed to provide appropriate protection to the Executive Officer for fencing the temple property, to be completed by 20 November 2026, and to submit a report to the Court.
Source reference: p. 5The Court clarified that no person could be dispossessed under the guise of fencing and listed the matter for reporting compliance on 23 November 2026
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
T.JayarmanvsThe State Rep. by, The District Collector
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
