Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J.
K. Shanmugavel Mudaliar – Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, HR & CE, (A) Administration Department – Respondent
W.P.Nos.36565 & 14190 of 2024 & WMP. Nos. 39423, 43141, 15383 to 15385 of 2024 & 48226 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the writ petitions and relief sought. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. characterization of the temple as private and ongoing civil dispute. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. violation of natural justice in appointing fit person. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. allegations of mismanagement and ongoing litigation concerning trustee status. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. arguments from respondents regarding hereditary trustee definitions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's analysis of legal precedents and arguments presented. (Para 18 , 20) |
| 7. court's directions on procedural compliance and trustee recognition. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. court's ruling on petitions' validity and enforcement of prior orders. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. conclusion on the writ petitions and restoration of management. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. final considerations on the status of the temple litigation. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 11. final judgment allowing the writ petitions. (Para 33) |
ORDER :
P.B.BALAJI, J.
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 4th 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 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 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 Of
The court held that hereditary rights to temple administration supersede unilateral executive appointments when trusteeship disputes are pending, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements and p....
The court upheld the appointment of a fit person for temple administration under Section 49 of the H.R.&C.E. Act, emphasizing the need for substantiated claims regarding trusteeship amid ongoing disp....
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees is valid under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when there is evidence of mismanagement by hereditary trustees, and full legal procedures a....
The court affirmed the hereditary trusteeship of defendants, ruling that plaintiffs failed to prove mismanagement or entitlement to non-hereditary trusteeship under the Hindu Religious Charitable End....
The court affirmed that while trusteeship can be hereditary, poojariship is not, as per the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, emphasizing the secular nature of appointments.
The appointment of a Fit Person by the HR & CE Department requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including prior notice, and must be justified by claims of mismanagement; otherwise, it ....
Point of Law : Temple or its precincts cannot be made a place where political parties should look forward to give political asylum to their workers.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
