Renovation of heritage structures requires adherence to expert committee guidelines, and moving deities is permissible if it respects heritage integrity and customary rights.

ORDER :

(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)

This writ petition is filed with a prayer challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 in Na.Ka.No. 887202/2024/Q3 passed by the first respondent and the subsequent approval of the drawings that deviate significantly from the original temple structure and to quash the same.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the present committee of trustees, namely the sixth respondent herein, is now starting the renovation work of Arulmigu Mariyamman Temple, Devendra Street, Singanallur, Coimbatore. The said temple is more than 100 years old. Originally, when the sixth respondent approached the State Level Expert Committee, they denied most of the works proposed by the trustees. However, they later submitted another report and obtained permission only for the conservation of the structure. After obtaining such permission, the very plan of the temple itself has now been changed. The deities have been moved to the periphery, which is against the State Level Expert Committee’s report and will also severely affect the heritage structures of the temple. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Balalayam ceremony is going to be conducted on Monday (i.e.08.04.2025), and therefore this Court should intervene.

4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader taking notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, would submit that the work that is going to be done does not involve shifting the heritage structure. The heritage structure will be maintained in situ. Wherever repairs are necessary, whether for the basement, walls or ceiling, those alone will be carried out in accordance with the recommendations made by the heritage committee and the State Level Expert Committee, with due consultation and direction from the Divisional Stapathi. Therefore, there is no violation of the committee’s report that the petitioner can complain about.

5. Ms.V.S.Usha Rani, the learned counsel taking notice on behalf of the sixth respondent, would submit that the writ petition is filed only due to group rivalry and the work is not being carried out in deviation from the reports. The work is being done in accordance with the permissions granted by the appropriate authorities.

6. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointing out the rough sketch/plan annexed at Pages 129 to 131 of the paperbook in the writ petition, would submit that the plan discloses that several deities, such as Vinayagar Sannidhi, have been moved to the periphery and the structure itself has now come to the center. This makes it appear as if the entire heritage structure is going to be demolished and reconstructed in a new place. Moreover, the deities cannot be moved by the trustees as per their choice.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material records of the case.

8. Detailed directions regarding the undertaking of the Thirupani have already been given by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, which necessitate that both the heritage committee and the state level expert committee have to give their prior permission before carrying out the work. The work has to be conducted by the duly approved Stapathi in the manner prescribed by the said judgment. It is now stated by respondents 1 to 5 as well as the sixth respondent, that the necessary permissions have been granted by both the heritage committee and the State Level Expert Committee. They contend that the original Arthamandapam and the heritage structure are not being totally demolished or moved from their current positions and the same is duly recorded. Even the permission granted by the expert committee is for conservation in situ, not for demolishing and constructing elsewhere. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the original heritage structure, namely the Arthamandapam, will not be moved from its present position and will only be conserved/renovat