C.Periyasamy vs The Joint Commissioner
2025 Latest Caselaw 2991 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2991 Mad
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2025

Madras High Court

C.Periyasamy vs The Joint Commissioner on 19 February, 2025

                                                                                    W.P.(MD)No.4452 of 2025


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED : 19.02.2025

                                                           CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

                                                    W.P.(MD)No.4452 of 2025
                                                             and
                                                   W.M.P.(MD)No.3196 of 2025

                 C.Periyasamy                                                          ... Petitioner
                                                                 -vs-

                 1.The Joint Commissioner,
                   Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
                   Madurai.

                 2.A.Alagarsamy                                                        ... Respondents


                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
                 issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order
                 passed by the first respondent in O.A.No.5 of 2020, dated 21.10.2024 and to
                 quash the same.


                                  For Petitioner             :     Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu

                                  For R1                     :     Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
                                                                   Additional Government Pleader




                 ____________
                 Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 W.P.(MD)No.4452 of 2025


                                                           ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order

passed by the first respondent in O.A.No.5 of 2020, dated 21.10.2024.

2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final

disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the second

respondent, notice to the second respondent is hereby dispensed with.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a

resident of Vanjipatti Village, Madurai District and that a deity named ''Pattathu

Arasi Amman'' has been worshipped by the petitioner's villagers from time

immemorial. On the eve of Mattu Pongal and Maha Shivarathiri, the Poojaries

have traditionally given honour to the petitioner's family on behalf of the Kallar

community, as part of customary practice. Similarly, individuals from other

communities are also honoured on behalf of their respective communities. The

mode of honouring involves the offering of sacred ash (Vibuthi) and betel and

thereafter, the holy ash of Amman is given to other villagers. The petitioner's

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

father, Chinnakaalai @ Vishakodai, being the eldest male descendant, was

traditionally given this honour during the festival. However, one Subbiah Naidu

filed a civil suit in O.S.No.84 of 1990 before the District Munsif Court, Melur,

seeking a declaration for grant of first honour and a permanent injunction. The

suit was decreed on 16.03.1992. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the

petitioner's father and others filed A.S.No.102 of 1992 before the Additional

District Court, Madurai. The lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and

decree passed in O.S.No.84 of 1990 and directed the parties to approach the Joint

Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department. The lower appellate Court also observed

that, pending adjudication before the Joint Commissioner, the family members of

Subbiah Naidu would be given the first honour in the temple.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the year

2012, the second respondent began to create a problem, claiming that his family

members are entitled to receive first honour on behalf of the Kallar community,

taking advantage of the name similarity his paternal uncle, Chinnakaalai. The

petitioner's father had traditionally received the honour during festival occasions

until his demise. Thereafter, the second respondent filed an application under

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the H.R. & C.E. Act') in O.A.No.5 of 2020,

without impleading the petitioner and other interested parties. The petitioner filed

an interim application in I.A.No.15 of 2023 to implead himself as a respondent

and put forth his defense. However, due to his old age, the petitioner was unable

to contact his counsel to represent him before the first respondent, and as a result,

the interim application was dismissed for default. Further, the first respondent

adjudicated O.A.No.5 of 2020 based on certain isolated portions of the deposition

from the civil suit in O.S.No.84 of 1990. Without issuing notice to any of the

interested parties, the first respondent, through the impugned order dated

21.10.2024, declared that the family of the second respondent, is entitled to

receive the honour on the eve of the festivals. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first

respondent submits that the petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order, has a

statutory appellate remedy available under Section 69 of the H.R. & C.E. Act.

The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the only remedy

available to the petitioner is to approach the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Department, if aggrieved by the impugned order. Without approaching the said

authority, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

7. This Court after considering the rival submissions, is of the considered

view that the petitioner will have to necessarily preferred an appeal as prescribed

under Section 69 of the H.R. & C.E. Act, if aggrieved by the impugned order.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal as

against the impugned order before the Commissioner as per Section 69 of the

H.R. & C.E. Act, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. On receipt of the same, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department,

shall dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks thereafter.

9. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is

closed.

                 NCC              : Yes / No                                  19.02.2025
                 Index            : Yes / No

                 ____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis



                 Copy to:-

                 The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Thousand Lights West, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600034.

To:-