BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 27/01/2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and WMP(MD)Nos.1406 and 1407 of 2026 Ravichandran ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Office at Thiruvanaikaval, Trichy.

3. The District Committee, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Trichy District.

4. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Thiruvanaikaval, Trichy.

5. The Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Arulmigu Anjaneyaswamy Kovil - Kallukuli, Kallukuli, Trichy - 20. 6. T.Shivashanmugam

7. Chandrasekar

8. Tharani ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3105/2025/A5/ dated 26.09.2025 passed by the 4^th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to declare the temples namely, Arulmigu Pidari Ayyanar, Sri Koothayee Amman, Bhagavathi Amman, Pidariyar and Saptha Kannimar, K.Sathanoor, Trichy East Taluk, Trichy District, under hereditary administrative Trustee.

For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Devasena For R1 to R5 : Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan, Government Advocate For R6 : Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Senthur For R7 & R8 : Mr.V.Kishok Kumar

ORDER

Challenging the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the

4^th respondent appointing the respondents 6 to 8 as non hereditary trustees to Arulmigu Pidari Ayyanar Temple, K.Sathanoor, Trichy East Taluk, Trichy District, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said order with a consequential direction to the 2^nd respondent to declare the temples namely, Arulmigu Pidari Ayyanar, Sri Koothayee Amman, Bhagavathi Amman, Pidariyar and Saptha Kannimar, K.Sathanoor, Trichy East Taluk, Trichy District, under hereditary administrative Trustee.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject temples were founded by the petitioner's ancestors and they were managing the affairs of the temple and thereafter the administration of the temple was handed over to the 5^th respondent / Executive Officer on 30.08.2017. According to the learned counsel, subject temples are hereditary temples and the petitioner and his relatives filed O.A.No.10 of 2025 under Section 64(1) of the HR & CE Act, 1959 before the 2^nd respondent to declare them as hereditary trustees of the subject temples which is pending. While so, without notice to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent passed the impugned order appointing the private respondents as non hereditary trustees to the subject temples. The petitioner obtained the impugned order under the Right to Information Act and filed this writ petition. Since the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent would submit that applications for appointment of non hereditary trustees for Arulmigu Pidari Ayyanar Temple were called for as early as on 03.01.2025 and thereafter by impugned order dated 26.09.2025, respondents 6 to 8 were appointed as non hereditary trustees to the said temple and they have also taken charge and that Kumbabishekam for the said temple is scheduled on 28.01.2026. They would further submit that the petitioner has locus standi no to challenge the appointment of non hereditary trustees since until the disposal of the O.A.No.10 of 2025 filed by the petitioner, the subject temple must be managed by non hereditary trustees. Further, when applications for appointment of non hereditary trustees were called for as early as on 03.01.2025, the petitioner did not make any objection and only after the appointment of non heredi