ORDER :

S. SRIMATHY, J.

This petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 2 and 4 to restore the Murugan Statue at Jothimurugan temple by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 20.01.2026.

2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are that the petitioner is one of the villagers, in their village there is one of the oldest temples namely Jothimurugan temple. Lord Murugan statue has been in existence on the hill for several decades, poojas are conducted daily, various people from Dindigul would come to worship. The petitioner had planned to conduct poojas and Annathanam on Thaipoosam festival in grand manner in the said temple. While that being so, when the villagers went to conduct pooja on 20.01.2026 at 6 am, it came to their knowledge that the Murugan statue was forcibly taken away by the police and revenue officials on 20.01.2026 at 3 am without informing the villagers and the statue was in the custody of police and revenue officials. The respondents have no right to interfere in the temple activities and they cannot take the statue without the knowledge of the villagers. Further the petitioner submitted that the respondent police is continuously interfering in their right to worship and had threatened the villagers by filing criminal case in Crime No.21 of 2026 and also threatened to file false cases against the villagers. The petitioner further submitted that there was no disturbance to the public by installing the Murugan deity and doing poojas with the participation of the devotees, but all of the sudden the respondents forcibly removed the deity, that too without due process of law. Further stated there is no complaint relating to the same and even if so, the respondents cannot remove the same forcibly. The Article 25 and 26 of Constitution had guaranteed religious freedom to people and to act according to its culture and social, the respondents prevented the villagers thereby acted against the said Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Hence the present writ petition.

3. The petitioner submitted that the respondents had removed the idols without granting any opportunity to the petitioner. And the respondents submitted that the petitioner without obtaining prior permission had installed the Murugan idol. Hence, pending writ petition, this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026 directed the petitioner to submit an application seeking permission to install the idol, on such submission the 1^st respondent District Collector was directed to consider and pass orders. Based on the direction the District Collector had passed an order dated 29.01.2026 and the copy of the order was placed before the Court.

4. The 4^th respondent had filed counter affidavit narrating the case of prosecution wherein it is stated that the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) namely H. Jenifer preferred a complaint stating that on 19.01.2026 at about 5 pm she was informed by the Village Assistant that in Survey No.203/1 located near Konapatti village, Lord Murugan statue measuring 3 feet was erected on the top of the Hill. Hence the VAO rushed to the place, found the statue and on enquiry came to know that one Senthilkumar son of Nagarajan, Balamurugan son of Alagar, Kalidass son of Nagaraj, Vellaisamy son of Sankar and some others have erected the statue without permission. In the said village various community people are residing and the act of the petitioner and others will create law and order problem. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered in Crime No.21 of 2016 under section 329(B), 196(1) (b) of BNS. After registering the case the police visited the place and prepared rough sketch and observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses namely Kumar son of Chinnasamy, Palanivel son of Ramasamy and also enquired the witnesses namely Jenifer (the defacto complainant) Mariyammal Village Assistant of Konapatti Village and Vellaisamy son of Chokkan and obtained statements under section 180(3) of BNSS. After