BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and WMP(MD)Nos.27813, 27815, 27817, 27818, 27819, 27847 of 2025 N.Balasubramanian ...Petitioner in WP(MD)No.35099 of 2025 S.Nagoor Mydeen ...Petitioner in WP(MD)No.35100 of 2025 C.Venkatachalam ...Petitioner in WP(MD)No.35101 of 2025 M.Murugan ...Petitioner in WP(MD)No.35102 of 2025 T.Marimuthu ...Petitioner in WP(MD)No.35103 of 2025 V.Esakkimuthu ...Petitioner in WP(MD)No.35104 of 2025 Vs

1.The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious &

Charitable Endowments Department, Thoothukudi.

2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Muppidathi Amman Temple, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District. ...Respondents Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned orders in Na.Ka.No.20/2025 dated 13.10.2025 and the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent pertaining to shop No.36-A belonging to Arulmigu Muppidathi Amman Temple, Kadayanallur and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Vijayakarthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Special Government Pleader in all Wps

ORDER

The petitioners are lessees of Arulmigu Muppidathi Amman Temple, Kadayanallur and they are running shops in the lands belonging to the temple. The petitioners have approached this court questioning the manner in which, the rent has been fixed for their shops vide the order impugned in these writ petitions.

2.The case of the petitioners is that they are lessees of the temple from the year 2001 and by the order impugned in these writ petitions, the respondents have fixed rent in an onerous manner by increasing

300%, instead of 15%. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without even providing an opportunity to the petitioners. In this regard the learned counsel has also relied on the order of the Division Bench of this court in WA.No.786 of

2022, dated 01.08.2022.

3.Mr.Balasubramanian, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and submits that fair rent has been fixed by the respondents as provided under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Endowments Act and also by following the procedures as contemplated under Rule 17 of the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, notice was issued to the petitioners and they have also submitted their objections. While so they cannot take a plea that they have not been provided opportunity and there is violation of principles of natural justice. He has also produced a copy of the notice and the explanation offered by the petitioners.

4.The learned Special Government Pleader has produced the proceedings of the committee consisting of the Executive Officer of the temple, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Divisional Engineer and the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department, the District Registrar of Registration Department. He further submits that there are seven shops and fair rent has been fixed to all the seven shops. One of the lessees has accepted the fair rent and has also paid the same, however, the petitioners are objecting to it.

5.He has referred to Rule 17 of the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963 and submits that fair rent shall be revised periodically once in a three years in accordance with the market value of the land and cost of the buildings as worked out as per the code of the Public Works Department. Therefore, according to him, there is no error in the impugned order. He has also referred to Sub Sections 3 and 5 of Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and submits that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order, they are having appeal remedy before the Commissioner of HR and CE Department and however, the remedy is also provided by way of revision before the Court