IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY K.Elangovan .. Petitioner Versus

1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Salem.

2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Salem.

3. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Mettur, Salem – 636 401.

4. M.Maharajan .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to appoint a Special Officer or Fit Person to conduct the Margazhi Utsavam 2025-2026 and other routine Poojas in Arulmigu Vinayakar Temple, Vettaraya Perumal Bajanai Madam and Gadagadapan Temple (hereinafter referred to as the ‘temple’) situate the Muththampatti, Banapuram Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District by considering my representation, dated

23.11.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Vijaya Raghavan For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate (HR & CE), for RR-1 and 2 : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Government Advocate, for R3 : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, for R4

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for a direction to appoint a Special Officer or a Fit Person to conduct the Margazhi Utsavam 2025-2026 and other routine poojas in Arulmigu Vinayagar temple, Vettaraya Perumal Bajanai Madam and Gadagadapan temple, situated at Muththampatti, Banapuram village, Mettur taluk, Salem district by considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 23.11.2025.

2. Upon hearing Mr.T.S.Vijaya Raghavan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate (HR & CE) for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate for the third respondent and Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent, it can be seen that these temples are located in Banapuram village. On account of the differences of opinion and leading to escalation of conflict relating to the management of the temple and conduct of the festival, a Peace Committee Meeting was said to have been conducted by the third respondent. Fearing further escalation of conflict, the third respondent has ordered that the temple be kept closed. Under the said circumstances, the present Writ Petition is filed to open the temple for the purpose of the conduct of the daily bhajanai during the month of Margazhi, which is going to expire shortly and the culmination festival on the first day of Thai.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and everyone in the village are entitled to participate and the fourth respondent does not have any right to be in the management and he has already filed an application under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)

before the first respondent.

4. The contention of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that the application filed under Section 63(b) of the Act will be disposed of in the manner known to law. The temple is not a listed temple and so far, no appointment is made in respect of the temple and so far, it is being managed by the village people. They do not know who is actually in the management of the temple so far.

5. The contention of learned Government Advocate for the third respondent is that there cannot be any breach of peace in the village, especially, on the first day of Thai during Pongal festival and therefore, only fearing backlash among the village public, the temple was ordered to be closed as there was no solution in the Peace Committee Meeting.

6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent is that the fourth respondent in the management of the temple, being part of the Committee chosen by the villagers and the fourth respondent is only administering the temples and the fourth respondent and the other Committee members will conduct the festival and they are ready if the temple is open. Their rights cannot be prematurely dislodged by