BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and W.M.P.(MD)No.290 of 2026 I.Shahul Hameed ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 3. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul.

4. The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Madurai District, Madurai.

5. Maheshwaran ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1, 3 and 5 to renovate Vinayagar Sannadhi and the Karuppasaamy Sannadhi, situated in survey No.90, of thummanaickanpatti Village as per the Expert Committee Resolution dated 23.07.2025 as sought for by the petitioner vide his representation dated 15.12.2025.

For Petitioner : Ms.D.Geetha For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R3 Mr.A.Albert James, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2 & R4 Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh for R5

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction as against the respondents 1, 3 and 5 to renovate Vinayagar Sannadhi and the Karuppasaamy Sannadhi, situated in survey No.90, of Thummanaickanpatti Village as per the Expert Committee Resolution dated 23.07.2025 as sought for by the petitioner vide his representation dated 15.12.2025.

2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. According to the petitioner, the 5^th respondent, claiming to be a hereditary trustee of the temple viz., Vinayagar Sannadhi and the Karuppasaamy Sannadhi, proposes to renovate the said temple. However, he is not the hereditary trustee of the said temple. With regard to the claim of the 5^th respondent as hereditary trustee, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner, HR & CE Department. Even though the said appeal is pending, now the 5^th respondent is proceeded to renovate the said temple, without any supervision of the HR & CE officials. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation on 15.12.2025, seeking the respondents 1, 3 and 5 to renovate the temple. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 would submit that the 5^th respondent has obtained permission from the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department and based on the suggestions given by the State Level Expert Committee of the 3^rd respondent, the 5^th respondent is started to renovate the temple. He further submits that any renovation will be strictly in accordance with the suggestions given by the State Level Expert Committee of the third respondent. He further submits that the HR & CE officials have already been monitoring the entire renovation work and therefore, no hardship will be made to the petitioner, even though an appeal is pending before the Commissioner, HR & CE with regard to the claim of hereditary trustee.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that since the 5^th respondent is started to renovate the temple, after getting approval from the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE and also by following the suggestions given by the State Level Expert committee, the interest of the petitioner is no way going to be affected. Further, the officials of the HR & CE Department are duly monitoring the renovation work carried out by the 5^th respondent. Hence, no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of passing any order in the appeal, which was pending before the Commissioner, HR & CE Department. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No vsm