2025:MHC:2739 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.A. No.3103 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.25262 of 2025 Dr.K.J.Renuka ... Appellant Vs.

1.Dr.K.Raghavendhar Karthik, M.D.S.

2.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

3.The Executive Engineer, Zone 10, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.117, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. 4.The Zonal Officer, Zone 10, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.117, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.

5.The Area Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Division 142, No.2/12, West Jones Road, West Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

6.Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimma Perumal Temple rep. By its Managing Trustee Mr.A.Madanagopal Chettiar, Perumal Koil Street, West Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

7.The Commissioner, HR and CE Board, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 34.

8.The Sub Registrar (Joint II), Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 26.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.10813 of 2024.

For Appellant : Mr.Vineet Subramani for Mr.N.J.Sagayaraj For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukumar for Mr.T.G.Balachandran for R1 Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu for R2 to R5 Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Dhamodharan for R6 Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader (H.R. & C.E.) for R7 Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader for R8

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Under assail is writ order dated 26.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.10813 of

2024. Writ appellant is not a party to the writ proceedings and by securing leave from this Court instituted the present intra-court appeal.

2. The first respondent filed writ proceedings seeking a direction to the Sub Registrar (Joint II), Saidapet, Chennai - 15 to register the lease deed submitted on 03.11.2023. Writ Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Sub Registrar to register the document within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Having aggrieved, appellant would submit that lease deed has been improperly drafted, term of lease has not been mentioned and the lease amount is also meagre and not commensurate with the market rent prevailing in that locality. Thus, lease deed registered would cause loss to sixth respondent temple viz., Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimma Perumal Temple and the temple is receiving public contribution and therefore, the appellant has chosen to file present writ appeal.

3. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that even in denomination temple, in the event of mal-administration, illegality or irregularity, State is empowered to interfere and initiate appropriate actions under the provisions of Statutes and Rules in force. In the present case, appellant submitted several complaints stating that 140 housing properties, 40 commercial properties in Saidapet Taluk, Chennai and 100 properties at Solavaram belongs to the 6th respondent/Temple are identified. The details provided by appellant have not been responded nor any action has been initiated by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of sixth respondent temple would oppose by stating that temple/6th respondent is a denominational temple and they have got a right to administer. In respect of a denominational temple, right to administer is conferred under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Right to administer will not include mal-administration. This being the legal principles settled by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the event of any mal-administration, State is empowered to step in and initiate appropriate actions. Learned senior counsel for sixth respondent would submit that public contributions have not been accepted by the temple administration. Since it is disputed, said factum is to be ascertained by th