BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI W.P(MD)No.396 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.363 & 364 of 2023 P.Subramanian ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai – 600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Trichy.

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ponnar Sankar Temple, Valanadu, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District.

4.The Fit Person, Arulmigu Ponnar Sankar Temple, Valanadu, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District.

5.N.R.Thiruvengatam

6.R.Chandrasekar

7.C.Ram Karthick ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3962/2022/Aa4 dated 12.12.2022 issued by the second respondent, quash the same as illegal.

For Appellant : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jeyaselan Government Advocate for R.1 & R.2 Mr.G.Mathavan for R.3 & R.4 Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian for R.5 No Appearance for R.6 & R.7

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The case on hand pertains to the management of Arulmigu Ponnar Sankar Temple, Valanadu, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District. Vide order dated 25.11.2010 in O.A.No.15 of 1994, the office of trustee of the said temple was declared to be hereditary. As a result of such declaration, two persons, namely, Chandrasekar and Thiruvengatam were declared as hereditary trustees. This said order is now the subject matter of suo motu revision proceedings on the file of the Commissioner, HR&CE. Vide order dated 03.12.2025 in W.A(MD)No.765 of 2020, we had directed the Commissioner, HR&CE to dispose of the said revision proceedings within six months.

3.Since allegation of misappropriation had been made, the trustees were placed under suspension and a fit person is in charge of the temple as on date. The order appointing the fit person was challenged and vide order dated 03.12.2025 in W.P(MD)No.6148 of 2019, we made the same subject to the outcome of the suo motu revision proceedings. In this writ petition, entering the name of Thiru.C.Ram Karthick (seventh respondent herein) as hereditary trustee of the temple under Section 54(1) of the Act, vide proceedings dated 12.12.2002 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Trichy is under challenge. The validity of the said order is assailed in this writ petition.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner points out that the authority had misconstrued the scope of Section 54 of TN HR&CE Act. As per Section 54(1), when a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the hereditary trustee of a religious institution, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed to the office. It is conceded that as per the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 1990 1 LW 144 (Prem Anand Vs The Commissioner, H.R&C.E) regarding the name of the person next in the line of succession is ministerial character. Section 54(2) provides that the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed when temporary vacancy occurs in the office by reason of suspension of the hereditary trustee under Sub-

section (2) of Section 53 of Act.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contends that Section 54(2) would be attracted only when suspension of the hereditary trustee is made as a measure of punishment and then alone, this sub Section will kick in. According to him, when the hereditary trustee is suspended pending enquiry into charges, Section 54(2) cannot be invoked. In support of this contention, he relied on catena of decisions particularly the one reported in 2015 8 MLJ 468 (A.Chidambaram Vs The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board) and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court rendered on 25.0