Madras High Court
R.Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 June, 2025
Bench: S.Srimathy, R.Vijayakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 23.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
REV.APL.WRIT(MD)Nos.81 and 82 of 2025
and WMP(MD).Nos.12035, 12037, 12036 and 12038 of 2025
1.R.Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal
Vidhayahar
Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil
No.42/27, 2nd Sandhi Lane
Thiruchendur 628 215
Thoothukudi District ....Review Applicant
/Petitioner in Review.No.81 of 2025
2.Sri Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil
Swathanthira Paribalana Sthalathargal Saba
(Regn.No.12/96) Rep.by its President
M.Veerabaghu Moorthy
S/o.Mahadevan
No.37, Thuvadasi Madam
Teppakulam Street
Thiruchendur 628 215
Thoothukudi District ....Review Applicant
/Petitioner in Review.No.81 of 2025
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary to Government
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
139, Uthamar Gandhi Salai
Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034
3.The Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
Thiruchendur Temple
Thiruchendur
4.The Thakkar/Fit Person
Thiruchendur Temple
Thiruchendur ....Respondents /Respondents
in both review applications
Common Prayer in Review Applications:- Review Applications filed under Order
47 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C read with Section 114 of CPC, to set aside the order dated
21.05.2025 passed in WP(MD).Nos.14567 and 14654 of 2025 and allow the review
applications.
For Petitioners : Mr.Sri Charan Rengarajan
For Mr.T.Sakthikumar in both applications
For Respondents :Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2
:Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthugeethayan for R3 & R4
in both applications.
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.)
These two review applications have been filed seeking to review the common
order passed by this Court in WP(MD).No.14567 and 14654 of 2025 on 21.05.2025.
(A)Factual Matrix:
i) The prayers in both the writ petitions are as follows:
Prayer in WP(MD).No.14567 of 2025: The Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to follow the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
timing fixed by the petitioner's as per Section 105(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the ancient texts and
literatures like 'Kala Prahasiha', 'Kala Vidhanam' and 'Sarva Mukurtha
Chinthamani' and declare that the consecration will take place on 07.07.2025
at 12.05 p.m to 12.45 pm.
Prayer in WP(MD).No.14654 of 2025: The Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to follow the
timing fixed by the petitioner's as per Section 105(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the ancient texts and
literatures like 'Kala Prahasiha', 'Kala Vidhanam' and 'Sarva Mukurtha
Chinthamani' and declare that the consecration will take place on 07.07.2025 at
12.05 p.m to 12.45 pm.
ii) A common order was passed by this Court on 21.05.2025 in Paragraph
Nos.8 are 9 are as follows:
8. We are of the considered opinion that the court would not be in a
position to fix the time and date with regard to the performance of the
Kumbhabhishekam, and it has to be decided by the concerned
experts.Therefore, we are inclined to form a committee consisting of the
following members:
1) Sthanikar and Vidhayahar of Arulmighu Subramaniya
Swamy Thirukoil (petitioner in W.P(MD)No.14567 of 2025);
2) Sivasri K.Pitchai Gurukkal, Chief Priest of Sri Karpaga
Vinayagar Temple, Pillaiyarpatti;
3) Sri.K.Subramaniaru, Thanthri of Sree Subramaniaswamy
Temple, Thiruchendur;
4) Sivasri S.K.Raja Pattar @ Chandrasekar Pattar, Sthanikar
of Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram; and
5) Sri Melsanthi, Iyyappan Temple, Sabarimala, Kerala.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
9. The learned counsel appearing on either side have agreed that the
committee of experts could decide the timing for the performance of the
Kumbhabhishekam on 07.07.2025. The meeting would be conducted at the
earliest in the presence of the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the
Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil, Tiruchendur. The respondents'
authorities are directed to arrange for such a meeting at the earliest, and
authorities are directed to follow the majority opinion of the abovesaid
committee in accordance with the Agama of the temple. The experts are
requested to consider the matter independently by considering various aspects,
including Agama Rules of the concerned temple, and arrive at an independent
decision. The experts are further requested to consider the representation of the
Sri Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil Swathanthira Sthalathargal Saba dated
25.04.2025 and 11.05.2025, which are addressed to the Government
authorities.
The above said common order was put to challenge before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP(C).No.16297-16298 of 2025.
(iii)The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass the following orders:
“1.Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned
senior counsel for the respondents appearing on caveat.
2.Considering the petitioners' submission that the formation of
the committee as indicated in para '9' of the order impugned is itself not
correct, we permit the petitioners to prefer a review petition.
3.At this stage, learned senior counsel for the respondents would
submit that the petitioners have already participated in the meetings
held by the committee and the report has already been submitted.
4.Be that as it may, if the petitioners so desire, they may prefer a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
review petition before the High Court with liberty to approach this
Court again.
5.The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed in the above
terms.”
2).Based upon the above permission granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the present review applications have been filed.
(B).The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioners have
made the following submissions:
3)The review applicant is the Vidhayahar of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy
Thirukoil, Thiruchendur. He plays a very vital role in deciding Agamic and Vedic
principles to be followed by the temple during performance of poojas, fixing
muhurtham for Kumbhabishekam, celebration of festivals etc., Therefore, the
Vidhayahar is the sole and exclusive authority on religious issues pertaining to the
temple.
4)The review application had sent a Kumbhabisheka Muhurtha Pattolai to the
authority on 03.04.2025 fixing the time between 12.05 p.m to 12.47 p.m on
07.07.2025 as the best time for performance of Kumbhabishekam. However, without
considering his opinion, the authorities have proceeded to fix a different time which
is inauspicious.
5)As per Section 105 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Act, 1959, the authorities have no right to interfere with the religious
and spiritual functions. However, in the present case, the authorities have ignored
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
the time fixed by Vidhayahar and has chosen to fix their own timings based upon the
alleged opinion obtained from some experts.
6)When Vidhayahar is available, he is the sole authority to fix the timings for
the auspicious function. By seeking opinion from other experts who are not
conversant with the Agama of Thiruchendur Subramaniya Swamy Temple, the HR &
CE officials are attempting to undermine the authority of Vidhayahar.
7)The review applicant/Vidhayahar had given two Muhurtha Pattolai
indicating the auspicious time as 6.00 a.m to 6.50 a.m and 09.30 a.m to 10.30 a.m.
These two Pattolai are tentative in nature and they were prepared before
Panchangam for the Tamil year was published. Therefore, the review application has
sent a third Muhurtha Pattolai on 03.04.2025 fixing the timings between 12.05 p.m
to 12.47 p.m after taking into account of new Panchangam and various other aspects.
The HR & CE officials, without any authority, have sought for opinion from some
experts and attempted to change the Kumbhabishekam timings thereby interfering in
the religious activities of the temple.
8)During the past, for various sub-temples affiliated to Thiruchendur
Subramaniya Swamy Temple, the Vidhayahar has initially given draft Pattolai and
thereafter, has given a fair Pattolai which was different from the draft Pattolai. The
HR & CE officials accepted the fair Pattolai and they proceeded to conduct the
festival as per the fair Pattolai. However in the present case, they have deviated from
the said precedent and considering the difference between draft Pattolai and fair
Pattolai as a contradiction, have proceeded to seek opinion from some experts. This
was done without putting the Vidhayahar on notice or seeking his further opinion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
This would clearly undermine the authority of the Vidhayahar.
9)The formation of the Expert Committee by this Court would affect the
customary as well as legal rights of the Vidhayahar. The HR & CE officials are likely
to take advantage of the same and ignore the advise and recommendation of the
Vidhayahar even in the religious matters in future. These aspects were not brought to
the notice of the Court when the main writ petitions were disposed of. Hence, the
present review applications.
(C)Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents 1 and 2 are as follows:
10)Both the review applicants are employees of the temple and they do not
have supremacy over the religious or any secular issue touching upon the
temple.When an opinion is sought for, Vidhayahar has given three different opinions
relating to the timings of Kumbhabishekam. Therefore, the HR & CE officials were
constrained to seek for expert opinion. The experts have unanimously agreed for the
timings between 6.00 am to 6.47 a.m. The members of the Committee who
were appointed by the Court have taken a unanimous decision except the Vidhayahar
that the timings between 6.00 a.m to 6.47 a.m is the most auspicious timing for
conducting consecration. Only after conducting a meeting pursuant to the order of
the High Court, the Agamic experts have arrived at such a finding.
11).The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the writ petition
has been filed seeking a declaration that the consecration should be conducted in a
particular timing. It is not based upon any legal right. In case, if the Vidhayahar
claims any extra-ordinary right of supremacy, it should be established before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
civil Court.
12).Having accepted the formation of Committee of Experts before this Court,
the review applications are not maintainable. The petitioners cannot reargue the
review applications as if it is an appeal. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the review
applications.
(D).Submissions on the side of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondents 3 and 4 are as follows:
13)The order under review was passed by consent of parties. Therefore, the
review applications are not maintainable.
14)The Vidhayahar has given three different timings for consecration of
temple on three different dates. Entertaining doubt over the auspicious timings, the
authorities have sought for opinion from some experts in the religious field who are
well-versed in the Agama principles. The experts have given an unanimous opinion
that the timings between 6.00 a.m to 6.50 a.m is auspicious.
15)After the orders of this Court, the Vidhayahar has participated in the
meeting and except the Vidhayahar, all others agreed to fix the consecration timings
as 6.00 am to 6.50 a.m. Therefore, there is almost unanimity among the Agama
experts with regard to the timings of Kumbhabishekam. The Vidhayahar cannot
insist that his opinion is supreme and it has to be followed by the temple.
16)The Vidhayahar as well as the Saba members are only employees of the
temple and they are receiving remuneration in kind or in cash. In such
circumstances, the employees cannot insist the administration to accept their opinion
and fix the timings for consecration of the temple.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
17)The HR & CE officials were constrained to seek opinion from the experts
only because of the fact that the Vidhayahar had given three different timings.
Therefore, the review applicants forced the officials for following the majority
opinion of the Agama experts.
18)The petitioner is attempting to ventilate his personal grievance and to
establish his supremacy in the religious matters. Therefore, the Public Interest
Litigation is not maintainable.
19)The present review applications have been filed by a different counsel on
record and argued by a different Senior Counsel. Therefore, the present review
applications are not maintainable.
20)The ingredients of the review application as contemplated under Order 47
Rule 1 of C.P.C have not been made out and the review applicants are attempting to
reargue the matters.
21).Heard both sides and perused the material records.
(E)Discussion:
22).This Court by an order dated 21.05.2025 has passed a common order
forming an Expert Committee to decide about the timings of the consecration of
Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruchendur on 07.07.2025. In paragraph
No.9 of the said order, this Court has specifically pointed out that the learned
counsels appearing on either side have agreed for formation of a Committee to
decide the timings. This has not been disputed in the grounds filed in the review
applications.
23).The counsel on record as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
the review applications have been changed. We cannot appreciate the procedure
adopted by the review applicants. However, considering the religious matter
touching upon the timings for consecration of the temple, we proceed to decide the
review applications on their merits.
24).The applicant in Review Application (MD).No.81 of 2025 is the
Vidhayahar of the temple. The applicant in Review Application (MD).No.82 of 2025
is Sri Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil Swathanthira Paribalana Sthalathargal Saba
(Hereinafter referred as 'Saba').
25).The grievance of both the applicants is that, instead of considering the
auspicious timing of 12.05 p.m to 12.47 p.m fixed by Vidhayahar of the temple for
consecration of the temple, the HR & CE officials have proceeded to fix the timings
as 6.00 a.m to 6.50 a.m. which is inauspicious.
26).A perusal of the records reveal that the Executive Officer of the temple has
addressed several communications to the Vidhayahar seeking his opinion with
regard to consecration of sub-temples affiliated to Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple,
Thiruchendur for changing of the main door, fixing date and timings of the religious
festivals associated with temple, change of bell, for introduction of new Kattalai etc.,
These letters have been addressed to the Vidhayahar between May 2017 to June
2021. Therefore, it is clear that the temple authorities are seeking opinion of the
Vidhayahar on each and every spiritual occasion/festival of the temple.
27).A perusal of the records filed on the side of the review applications further
reveal that the review applicant has initially given dates and timings for performance
of consecration of Sivabaleswarar Temple which is a sub-temple affiliated to Sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
Subramaniya Swamy Temple. Later, he had changed the date and timings and it has
been accepted by the authority.
28).A perusal of the previous conduct of the temple officials reveal that they
used to send letters in writing seeking opinion of the Vidhayahar for fixing the date
and timings for conducting each and every function. However, for a big religious
function like that of consecration of Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruchendur,
no such letter in writing has been addressed to the Vidhayahar of the temple. It is
here the problem started and the conduct and attitude of the temple put the
Vidhayahar in precarious position. The Vidhayahar to protect his position has
voluntarily sent the three Pattolais. Taking advantage of Vidhayahar’s three Pattolais
the authorities had approached the experts to get an opinion. In case, if they have
entertained any doubt over the different timings given by Vidhayahar, an attempt
should have been made to seek clarification from him about the three different
timings. No such attempt was made, which has deepened the issue into crisis. It is
therefore clear that the HR & CE officials have been highly discourteous to the
Vidhayahar of the temple, which has led to the crisis.
29).Now let us consider the present controversy touching upon the timings
of consecration of Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruchendur on 07.07.2025. It
should also be noted that the Vidhayahar has not mentioned in his first two Pattolais
(sacred letter indicating the auspicious time for a temple function) that they are draft
Pattolai and they are subject to confirmation on a later date after reconciling the date
and timings with the new Panchangam. When a third Pattolai was sent to the
authority on 03.04.2025, they have treated all the three Pattolais as fair Pattolai and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
they sought for opinion from the experts.
30).It is contended on the side of the HR & CE officials that the Vidhayahar
and the Saba members are mere employees of the temple. In Paragraph No.18 of the
counter filed by the temple it is averred that, a civil suit in O.S.No.151 of 2017 is
pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thiruchendur, touching upon the rights
of the Vidhayahar as well as rights of the Saba members.
31).The present writ petitions have been filed based upon the customary rights
of the Vidhayahar which are said to be protected under Section 105 of the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Since the said issue is pending before
the competent civil Court, were are not expressing any opinion on the said issue.
32).As far as the present dispute relating to fixing of timings of consecration
is concerned, had the Vidhayahar been careful and pointed out in his first two
Pattolais that they are draft in nature and he would come out with a fair Pattolai after
going through the Panchangam in future, this confusion would not have arisen. The
Committee, that was formed by this Court with the consent of both the parties, was
already convened and the members of the said Committee have, by majority, decided
about the timings of the consecration.
33)Considering the fact that the experts in the Agama principles have arrived
at a opinion with regard to the timings of the consecration as 6.00 a.m to 6.47 a.m,
we are not inclined to interfere in the said timings. However, we make it clear that
this Court was constrained to form an Expert Committee only due to the fact that
Vidhayahar of the temple had given three different Pattolais without mentioning that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
the first two Pattolais are draft in nature. Considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances, we uphold the formation of the Expert Committee and the timings
fixed by them and this should not be taken as a precedent in future. Until a decision
is rendered by a competent civil Court, the supremacy of the Vidhayahar in relation
to the religious matters of the temple has to be protected. Therefore, the temple is
directed to the earlier procedure of seeking opinion from the Vidhayahar through
written communcation alone. The Vidhayahar shall indicate whether it is draft or
final Pattolai while giving opinion and fixing the timing.
F. Conclusion and Directions:
34). In view of the above said deliberations the following directions are
issued:
i. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the timing fixed by the
expert committee for the present Kumbhabishekam scheduled to be held
on 07.07.2025.
ii. The temple is directed to follow the earlier procedure of seeking
opinion from the Vidhayahar through written communications alone.
iii. The Vidhayahar shall indicate whether it is draft or final pattolai while
giving opinion and fixing the timing.
The Review Applications are disposed of with the above said observations
and directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
closed.
(S.S.Y.J.,) (R.V.J.,)
23.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1.The Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
139, Uthamar Gandhi Salai
Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034
3.The Section Officer
Writ Posting
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
S.SRIMATHY,J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
msa
REV.APL.WRIT(MD)Nos.81 and 82 of 2025
and WMP(MD).Nos.12035, 12037,
12036 and 12038 of 2025
23.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 04:46:44 pm )
