[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar vs The Commissioner on 9 January, 2026
2026:MHC:135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 02.12.2025 Order pronounced on : 09.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
W.P.Nos.36565 & 14190 of 2024
& WMP.Nos. 39423, 43141,
15383 to 15385 of 2024 & 48226 of 2025
W.P.No.36565 of 2024:
1.K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar
2.S.Kaaviya Laxmy
3.S.Kumarasamy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
HR & CE, (A) Administration Department,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE, Administration Department,
Kanchipuram,
Kanchipuram District – 631 501.
3.The Executive Officer/Fit Person,
A/M.Ranganatha Perumal Temple,
Thiruneermalai, Chennai – 600 044.
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
4.The Executive Officer,
A/M, Agastheeswarar Temple,
Having office at A/M, Thirusulanathan Swami Temple,
Thirusulam, Chennai – 600 043.
5.The Inspector of Police,
S6, Sankar Nagar,
Pammal, Chennai – 600 075. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the order of the 2 nd respondent
dated 28.05.2024 in Na.Ka.No.544/2024/A1 and all the connected
proceedings as null and void and the continuance of the 4 th respondent as
Executive Officer and the 3rd respondent as Fit Person in the petitioners'
Temple as being illegal and violative of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2014 (1) CTC 763 and also the terms and conditions for
appointment of Executive Officers Rules 2015 also violated and
consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to hand over the administration of
the temples to the petitioners being the Hereditary Trustees and to remove
all seal and locks.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Saikrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader for RR1 to 4
Mr.M.Murali
Government Advocate for R5
W.P.No.14190 of 2024:
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
1.K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar
2.S.Kaaviya Laxmy
3.S.Kumarasamy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
HR & CE, (A) Administration Department,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE, Administration Department,
Kanchipuram,
Kanchipuram District – 631 501.
3.The Executive Officer/Fit Person,
A/M.Ranganatha Perumal Temple,
Thiruneermalai, Chennai – 600 044.
4.The Inspector of Police,
T4 Sankar Nagar Police Station,
Pammal, Chennai – 600 075. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file
of the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned order passed by the 2 nd
respondent dated 19.03.2024 in Se.Mu.Na.Ta.Na.Ka.No.544/2024/AA1 and
quash the same and to direct the respondents to restore the original
possessions all damages and missing things and to forbear the respondents,
their agents, subordinates from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful
administration and management of temples, till the character of instructions
is adjudicated in the manner known to law.
3/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sarath Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader for RR1 to 3
Mr.M.Murali
Government Advocate for R4
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.14190 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioners, to quash the
impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 19.03.2024, in and by which, the
Executive Officer of Arulmigu Ranganatha Perumal Thirukoil,
Thiruneermalai has been appointed as the Fit Person for the subject temple
and for consequential orders.
2.W.P.No.36565 of 2024 has been filed by the writ petitioners to
quash the order dated 28.05.2024 and connected proceedings as null and
void and to declare the continuance of the 4 th respondent, the Executive
Officer and the 3rd respondent/Fit Person to the petitioners' Temple as illegal
and violative of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also Terms
and Conditions of Appointment of the Executive Officers Rules, 2015 and
to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to hand over administration of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
the temple to the petitioners, who are the hereditary trustees, after removing
the seal and locks.
3.I have heard Mr.T.Saikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.36565 of 2024 and Mr.S.Sarath Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners in W.P.No.14190 of 2024 and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned
Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.No.36565 of
2024 and respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.14190 of 2024 and Mr.M.Murali,
learned Government Advocate for the 5th respondent in W.P.No.36565 of
2024 and the 4th respondent in W.P.No.14190 of 2024.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ
petitions would submit that the petition temple, Arulmigu Agatheeswarar
Temple, Pozhichalur, is a private temple which was established by the
petitioners' ancestors within the residential premises, situate on grama
natham lands. The lands admittedly belong to the Government and not to the
HR & CE Department. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also
state that a Inam Ryotwari Patta was granted under Section 8(1) of the Tamil
Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
favour of the trustees and at no point of time, the temple has been
considered as a public religious endowment and consequently, it is neither
covered under Section 1(3) of the Act nor falls within the definitions under
Sections 6(17) and 6(20) of the HR & CE Act. In fact, the learned counsel
would also invite my attention to the civil dispute as regards the character of
the temple and its properties, being private or public, being pending
pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.789
of 2017 etc., dated 30.07.2025, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
directed the Sub-Court, Alandur to decide O.S.Nos.896, 726 and 103 of
2021 on merits and in accordance with law, without being prejudiced or
influenced by any of the orders passed earlier.
5.It is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that when the statutory suit is pending, without a final adjudication
regarding the nature and character of the temple and its properties, the
respondents could not have unilaterally exercised right to appoint an
Executive Officer/Fit Person and attempt to take over the administration and
management of the temple.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
6.It is also brought to my notice that though the petitioners filed a suit
in O.S.No.118 of 2009, which was subsequently transferred and renumbered
as O.S.No.20 of 2022, came to be dismissed, it will not operate as res
judicata and the character and status of the temple as well as the hereditary
trusteeship of the petitioners is at large before the Sub-Court in the above
referred suit. The learned counsel for the petitoners would also state that
while matters stood there, in and by the impugned order dated 19.03.2024, a
Fit Person has been appointed for the petitioner temple.
7.The grievance of the petitioners is that the said order was passed in
gross violation of principles of natural justice and without even issuing a
notice under Section 54(3) r/w Section 23 of the HR & CE Act, which
mandates a notice to be issued. It is therefore contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is in flagrant violation of
not only the statutory provisions, but also principles of natural justice. In
fact, it is also the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 is ante-dated and was never
served on the petitioners and under the guise of the appointment of a Fit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
Person under the impugned order, the Executive Officer/Fit Person
trespassed into the petitioners temple and forcibly took over the
administration, throwing the mandatory procedure under Section 101 of the
HR & CE Act, to the winds. The petitioners have filed a criminal complaint
before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram and the same
is pending enquiry.
8.The learned counsel for the petitioners would also contend that the
presumption drawn by the Department that the petitioners temple is a public
temple is merely based on a wrongful assumption by the Department that
since the trustees have been appointed by the Department, it would confer
the status of a public temple. In this regard, it is contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that when the statutory suit is pending, no such
presumption would have been drawn by the respondents and the exercise of
all subsequent actions were clearly illegal, unlawful and liable to be set
aside.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioners would also brought to my
notice, the order passed by this Court in one of these writ petitions, namely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
W.P.No.14190 of 2024 on 25.05.2024, where this Court finding that the 1 st
petitioner, K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar was acting as the hereditary trustee and
his legal heirs would be entitled to succeed to the post of the hereditary
trustee and that none else can step into his shoes, granted liberty to any of
the legal heirs of the 1st petitioner to file an appropriate application, seeking
to appoint themselves as hereditary trustees. In fact, this Court held as
follows, “as and when such application is filed, the same shall be allowed.
Till an order is passed by the competent authority, the Fit Person can
continue to discharge his duty.”. This order dated 25.05.2024 has become
final and it virtually disposes of both the writ petitions in my considered
opinion. The legal heirs of the 1 st petitioner were directed to file an
application, seeking to appoint themselves as hereditary trustees and no
discretion was left to the respondents, as this Court issued a positive
direction that as and when such application is filed, it shall be allowed.
10.According to the petitioners, the 2 nd and 3rd petitioners, being legal
heirs of the 1st petitioner, have submitted applications on 03.06.2024,
06.04.2025 and again on 29.10.2025. Despite the same, no orders have been
passed to discharge the Fit Person and recognize the succession to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
hereditary trusteeship. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying
on several orders of this Court, would also contend that under Section 54(1)
of the Act, succession to hereditary trusteeship is automatic and there was
no need to even make an application in the first place. However, in
compliance with the orders of this Court on 25.05.2024, formal applications
have also been made.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioners would also invite my
attention to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.803 of 2020, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a Fit
Person/Executive Officer cannot be appointed, without considering the
entitlement of the heirs. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also
invite my attention to the order passed by this Court in CMP.No.4895 of
2018 and CRP.No.1123 of 2014, where this Court taking note of the fact
that no action that will precipitate the status quo of the plaintiff shall be
passed, without the leave of the civil Court where the statutory suit is
pending. This order has also become final, according to the petitioners and
therefore, the impugned orders are clearly violative of orders of this Court
time and again. They would therefore pray for the writ petitions being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
allowed by quashing the impugned proceedings and to restore hereditary
trusteeship to the family of the petitioners.
12.Per contra, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the HR & CE Department would fairly admit that
statutory suit is pending and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued certain
directions. However, he would submit that the petitioners have an alternate
remedy to approach the Commissioner, challenging the proceedings of the
2nd respondent under Section 21 of the Act, which is an equally effective and
efficacious remedy. On this ground, it is contended by the learned Special
Government Pleader that the writ petitions are not maintainable.
13.On the merits of the averments set out in the writ petitions, the
learned Special Government Pleader would submit that admittedly the
petitioner temple is a listed temple coming under the control of the
Department under Section 46(i) of the Act and the Executive Officer is
administering the day to day affairs of the temple. The 1 st petitioner is no
longer the hereditary trustee of the temple, as he has been removed vide
proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai, way back on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
27.02.2009. The said order was challenged by the 1 st petitioner in
W.P.No.3693 of 2009. The same was dismissed, giving liberty to the 1 st
petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Commissioner, HR & CE
under Section 53(5) of the Act. The 1 st petitioner challenged the order of the
removal before the Commissioner, which was also dismissed on 29.05.2017
in A.P.No.18 of 2009. The 1st petitioner has thereafter filed a statutory suit
under Section 53(6) of the Act before the Sub-Court, Tambaram, in
O.S.No.160 of 2017, which is now transferred to Sub-Court, Alandur and
pending in O.S.No.896 of 2021. The learned Special Government Pleader
would therefore state that when there is no interim order, staying the
proceedings/order of the 2nd respondent, terminating the 1st petitioner, the 1st
petitioner has no locus and cannot contend that he continues to be the
hereditary trustee of the petitioner temple.
14.Insofar as the petitioners 2 and 3, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan,
learned Special Government Pleader would contend that as on date, they
have not been recorded as hereditary trustees and unless the mandate of
Section 54(2) of Act is followed, they also cannot claim any hereditary
status. He would further contend that despite the order dated 25.05.2024 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
one of the above writ petition in W.P.No.14190 of 2024, the petitioners have
not approached the respondents to record them as the hereditary trustees or
even as interim Fit Persons.
15.The learned Special Government Pleader would further state that
even according to the petitioners, the temple is situate is grama natham lands
and the petitioners cannot claim it to be their property. In such
circumstances, the temple, which is situate on Government property, is only
a public temple and the temple is governed only by the provisions of the
Act, within the meaning of Section 1(2)(3) as well as Section 6(17) and
Section 6(20) of the HR & CE Act.
16.The learned Special Government Pleader would further state that
the petitioners are attempting to distort the order passed in SLP.No.13861 of
2009, which granted an order of status quo between the legal heirs of the
deceased father of the petitioners, regarding succession to the office of
hereditary trusteeship. He would further contend that the petitioners have
not been able to show that the temple was built by their ancestors or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
predecessors and the question whether the temple is a private temple or
public temple has been decided in O.S.No.118 of 2009, as well as in
O.S.No.20 of 2025 and CRP.No.1779 of 2019. He would further contend
that the very fact that the 1st petitioner moved the Department under Section
54(1) of the Act for recognition as hereditary trustee, after death of his father
estops the petitioners from turning around and claiming that the temple
would not come under the purview of the HR & CE Act.
17.It is also the specific contention of the learned Special Government
Pleader that there has been gross mismanagement by the petitioners as well
as breach of trust, misappropriation of temple funds and failure to take
proper care of the properties of the temple and as many as 14 charges were
framed against the 1st petitioner, which were all proved after due enquiry,
resulting in his removal from office in 2009. He would therefore state that
there is absolutely no infirmity in the appointment of the Executive
Officer/Fit Person for managing the day to day affairs of the petitioners
temple.
18.In fact, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
Executive Officer was appointed even in 1991 under Section 45(1) of the
Act and the 1st petitioner was recorded as a hereditary trustee in the place of
his father on 24.11.1998 and at no point of time, the 1 st petitioner challenged
the appointment of the Executive Officer in 1991. The learned Special
Government Pleader would also state that the petitioner has sold several
acres of the temple property, besides also settling vast extents on his wife,
besides mortgaging temple properties. Promptly action was initiated against
him under Section 53(2) of the Act and therefore even though this Court had
directed the respondents to recognize the 1st petitioner's legal heirs as the
hereditary trustees, firstly no application has been made as directed by this
Court in the order dated 25.05.2024 and secondly, the legal heirs cannot be
expected to take action against the 1st petitioner, their close family member
and therefore, this Court, taking into account the fact that the Court is the
custodian of temple properties, should not direct the recognition of the
petitioners 2/3 as the hereditary trustee, succeeding to the 1st petitioner.
19.The learned Special Government Pleader would also rely on Rule
10(1) of the Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015, which states
that the Rules will not adversely affect the powers of Executive Officers,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
who have been holding the post immediately before the date of
commencement of the Rules. It is therefore contended by the learned Special
Government Pleader that the prayer sought for in the above writ petition to
declare the appointment of the Executive Officer/Fit Person as being
violative of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is unsustainable,
devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
20.It is also the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader
that in 2009, a Fit Person has been appointed by the Joint Commissioner,
pursuant to terminating the 1st petitioner, on account of maladministration
and after dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2022 on 03.10.2024 and the
petitioners cannot continue to claim right, that too, by invoking powers
under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The learned Special Government
Pleader would also state that after taking charge of the temple in March
2024, the respondents 3 and 4 have taken several steps to protect the temple
properties, performed regular poojas, maintained the temple premises in
good condition, ensured devotees have comfortable dharshan, drinking
water facility, toilet facility, etc., and that Kumbabishegam is also to be
performed in March 2026 and necessary approvals have already been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
received from the Regional Expert Committee, State Expert Committee and
works have already commenced for successful performance of the
Kumbabishegam. The learned Special Government Pleader would therefore
state that the Court exercising parens patria jurisdiction is entitled to protect
the property of the deity and the writ petitions are therefore liable to be
dismissed.
21.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned Special Government
Pleader for the respondents.
22.The discussion and extract of the arguments of the learned counsel
on both sides would amply narrow down the scope of these writ petitions.
The appointment of the Fit Person has been challenged in W.P.No.14190 of
2024 by proceedings dated 19.03.2024. This Court, after hearing the parties,
by order dated 25.05.2024, directed the petitioners to file an appropriate
application, seeking appointment as hereditary trustees and that as and when
such application is filed, this Court, leaving no room for discretion at the
end of the Department, directed that such application will have to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
necessarily allowed and only till such time, an order is passed by the
competent authority, this Court entitled the Fit Person to continue to
discharge his duties.
23.The petitioners 2 and 3, pursuant to the said orders, have written to
the Joint Commissioner on 03.06.2024, referring to the order dated
25.05.2024, seeking to recall the appointment of the Fit Person and to hand
over the charge to the petitioners 2 and 3, whose status as legal heirs is not
in dispute. No doubt, in the said representation, the petitioners have stated
that law does not necessitate them to even make an application, as
succession is automatic. Reliance has been placed on the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.803 of 2020 and the
judgment of this Court in 2002 (5) CTC 31.
24.It is however contended by Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan that this
communication dated 03.06.2024 is not in compliance with the directions
issued by this Court on 25.05.2024. Even though as rightly contended by the
learned Special Government Pleader, there was no request to recognize the
petitioners 2 and 3, a reading of the entire communication clearly indicates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
that the said communication was sent only pursuant to the order passed by
this Court on 25.05.2024. The petitioners were probably advised that since
the law does not require any formal application, they have not specifically
sought for recognition of their hereditary trusteeship.
25.Even thereafter, another representation was given on 06.04.2025
by the petitioners 2 and 3, where they have specifically sought to be
appointed as the hereditary trustees, without prejudice to their rights in the
pending suits and various orders passed by the Courts. In fact, a further
representation was given by the petitioners 2 and 3 on 29.10.2025, which is
clearly styled as “third formal application”. In such circumstances, I am
unable to countenance the argument of the learned Special Government
Pleader that the petitioners 2 and 3 have not made any formal application
under Section 54(1) in compliance with the orders of this Court dated
25.05.2024.
26.By not acting upon the applications filed by the petitioners 2 and 3,
the respondents have clearly violated the order of this Court dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
25.05.2024. It is not open to the respondents to contend that the petitioners
have not made any application at all and hence, they are not entitled to be
recognized. The order of this Court dated 25.05.2024 has not been
challenged by the respondents till date and consequently, the failure to
recognize the respondents 2 and 3 as the hereditary trustees is clearly
tantamounting to willful disobedience of the orders of this Court. I do not
see any reason why the petitioners 2 and 3 are disqualified to be recognized
as hereditary trustees.
27.Though it is contended by the Special Government Pleader that the
1st petitioner has indulged in gross misappropriation of assets and funds of
the temple, it is not a ground to disallow the entitlement of the petitioners 2
and 3, who are otherwise entitled to be recognized as hereditary trustees,
especially after the positive direction issued by this Court in one of these
writ petition in W.P.No.14190 of 2024. There was no other option for the
Department but to recognize the petitioners 2 and 3 and discharge the Fit
Person. In view of the above, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in
W.P.No.14190 of 2024. The order dated 19.03.2024 is quashed, the
appointment of Fit Person is set aside and the 3 rd respondent shall pass a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
formal order, recognizing the hereditary trusteeship of the petitioners 2 and
3, forthwith. The respondents are also directed to restore the management
and administration of the temple to the petitioners 2 and 3. The parties are
directed to await final orders in the statutory suit pending before the Sub-
Court, Alandur, in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
28.Insofar as W.P.No.36565 of 2024, challenging the order dated
28.05.2024, I do not see any impediment for the administration of the
temple being handed over to the petitioners 2 and 3 and the continuance of
the Executive Officer, 4th respondent is unnecessary. No doubt, the learned
Special Government Pleader has placed reliance on the appointment of
Executive Officers Rules, 2015, which came into effect only after the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2014 (1) CTC 763, but however,
when admittedly the temple has been managed and administered by the
hereditary trustees and even before the 1 st petitioner, his father was
recognized as hereditary trustee and he was in charge up to 1991 and only
pursuant to his demise, a Fit Person was appointed only as a stopgap
arrangement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
29.Subsequently, when the 1st petitioner was recognized as a
hereditary trustee, there was no longer any requirement to continue with the
Executive Officer and in view of the orders in W.P.No.14190 of 2024 dated
25.05.2024, as well as the directions issued in and by this common order,
the continuance of the Executive Officer is also wholly unnecessary. The
Rules framed in 2015 will not come in the way of the hereditary trustees
taking over the management and administration of the petitioner temple and
the Rules are only subservient to the statutory provisions and cannot over
ride the provisions of the Act.
30.Section 47 of the HR & CE Act deals with a religious institution
included in the list published under Section 46 and can be pressed into
service only when there are no hereditary trustees. Admittedly, the petitioner
temple has hereditary trustees and therefore, the respondents could not have
fallen back on any of the subsections of Section 47 of the Act and proceeded
to appoint an Executive Officer or a Fit Person. In the light of the above,
W.P.No.36565 of 2024 also deserves to be allowed. It is also brought to my
notice by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
attempting to lease out the lands belonging to the petitioner temple and
tender has also been called for. In view of the orders passed in these writ
petitions, all such steps and actions taken by the respondents stand nullified
and the parties are directed to await the final decision in the statutory suit
pending, regarding the nature and character of the temple, its properties, as
well as the trusteeship of the petitioners 2 and 3.
31.Equally, the suit filed originally in O.S.No.118 of 2019 and
subsequently renumbered as O.S.No.20 of 2022 did not deal with the
character of the temple or the hereditary trusteeship status of the petitioners.
The said suit was also only filed by the 1 st petitioner and not by the
petitioners 2 and 3. In such circumstances, the dismissal of the said suit will
also not come in the way of the petitioners 2 and 3, exercising their
legitimate rights under the law.
32.The order in CRP.No.1779 of 2019 is sought to be put against the
petitioners by the Special Government Pleader. This Court only confirmed
the dismissal of a stay application filed, that too by the 1 st petitioner and this
Court finding that the order of status quo granted by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was only with regard to recognizing rights of Varalakshmi and others
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
as hereditary trustees and not relating to removal of the 1 st petitioner and
appointment of the Fit Person, did not find any merit in the revision. Though
this Court observed that the 1st petitioner having moved the Department
under Section 54(1) for being recognized as hereditary trustee after the death
of his father cannot turn around and contend that the temple would not come
within the purview of the HR & CE Act, these observations in the passing
would not be binding as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the final order passed
on 30.07.2025 has specifically directed the Sub-Court to decide the matter
on merits and without being influenced by any of the other orders passed
concerning the parties to the lis.
33.With the above observations and directions, these Writ Petitions
are allowed. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
09.01.2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
To
1.The Commissioner,
HR & CE, (A) Administration Department,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE, Administration Department,
Kanchipuram,
Kanchipuram District – 631 501.
3.The Executive Officer/Fit Person,
A/M.Ranganatha Perumal Temple,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
Thiruneermalai, Chennai – 600 044.
4.The Executive Officer,
A/M, Agastheeswarar Temple,
Having office at A/M, Thirusulanathan Swami Temple,
Thirusulam, Chennai – 600 043.
5.The Inspector of Police,
S6, Sankar Nagar,
Pammal, Chennai – 600 075.
P.B. BALAJI,J.
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
Pre-delivery order made in
W.P.Nos.36565 & 14190 of 2024
& WMP.Nos. 39423, 43141,
15383 to 15385 of 2024 & 48226 of 2025
09.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
