The courts recognized that administrative decisions must be based on relevant materials, but procedural flaws may not always warrant intervention if community interests are respected.

ORDER :

Heard both sides.

2.Thiru.Rengesan is a resident of Thimmachipuram, K.Pettai Village, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District. He is the petitioner herein. He challenges the decision taken by the State Level Expert Committee, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai permitting replacement of the current statue of Arulmigu Kanagathoniamman Temple, Thimmachipuram. The idol that was originally installed was replaced a few decades ago. Kumbhabisekam for the said temple is to be held on 27.10.2025. The trust board passed a resolution for replacing the existing idol with the earlier one. The question that calls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the order passed by the State Level Expert Committee approving the resolution of the trust board is liable to be interfered with.

3.The Hon'ble Division Bench to which the Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Mahadevan (as His Lordship then was) was a party had passed a series of directions with regard to the temples in Tamil Nadu. Vide order dated 07.06.2021 in Suo Motu W.P.No.574 of 2015, it was directed as follows:-

“(6) The State shall reconstitute the State Level Expert Committee, consisting of a Structural Expert, Archaeological Expert, Conservation Expert, a qualified Traditional Stapathi preferably from the Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mamallapuram, an Expert from history, epigraphy, iconography and Fine arts and Two Agama Experts, besides a representative from HR&CE and PWD Departments. The State Level Expert Committee shall be responsible for carrying out and according sanctions for the repairs/renovations of the temples and archaeological sites, on the recommendation of the District Level Committees.”

4.The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the impugned decision is not in consonance with the aforesaid direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench. According to him, there was no recommendation of the District Level committee and that the State Level Expert Committee (herein after referred to as SLEC) acted on its own.

5.The above contention may not factually be correct. A mere look at the materials on record would show that the Regional Level Expert Committee met on 30.07.2025 and recommended re-installation of the original idol. This was forwarded to SLEC which in its meeting held on 06.08.2025 granted permission for fixing the old statue by replacing the current statue. The recommendation of the Regional Level Committee not only favours the decision of the trust board, but is also prior in point of time. It would have been better if in the impugned decision of the SLEC, it has been specifically mentioned that the sanction accorded by it is on the recommendation of the Regional Level Expert Committee. But mere omission to make such an explicit reference will not vitiate the impugned decision. From the sequence of events, one can conclude that SLEC acted on the basis of the decision of the Regional Level Expert Committee.

6.There is, however, considerable force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the impugned decision is based on irrelevant material. The resolution of SLEC reads that the installation of the earlier idol stood permitted as per archeological report. An archeological report can testify the antiquity of the idol. Whether an idol should be installed in the sanctum sanctorum is a matter that has to be decided only