IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY P.Raji S/o.Poongavanam

556, Pachaiyamman Koil Street (Bye pass Road)

Kizhsathamangalam, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, Hereditary Trustee, A/m. Mannarsamy Pachaiamman Temple, Mummuni Village, Vandavasi Taluk.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department, Gandhi Nagar, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The Assistant Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. Department, Oya Madam, Tiruvannamalai.

3. The Inspector, H.R & C.E.Department, Kottai Baktha Anchaneyar Temple premises, Vandavasi, Tiruvannamalai District.

..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to do daily poojas in A/m.Mannarswamy Pachaiyamman Temple situated at Mummuni Village, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 07.07.2025.

For Petitioner: Mr.Amar D Pandiya For Respondents: Mr.S.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to perform daily poojas in Arulmigu Mannarswamy Pachaiyamman Temple, situated at Mummuni Village, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, by considering the petitioner’s representation dated

07.07.2025.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier, when the petitioner claimed to be the hereditary trustee of the very same temple, the O.A.No.1 of 2008 was dismissed by the third respondent. As against the same, A.P.No.32 of 2013 was filed and was also dismissed. When the same was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 37964 of 2015, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file a civil suit. Accordingly, a civil suit in O.S.No.398 of 2024 has been filed and is now pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vandavasi. While so, the Fit Person is interfering with the petitioner’s right to perform pooja. Earlier, in W.P.No.26518 of 2007, while dismissing the writ petition challenging the order of the Fit Person, this Court observed that the Fit Person shall not interfere with the petitioner’s right to perform pooja if the same had been carried on by his forefathers and continued by the petitioner.

Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner’s claim of hereditary trusteeship stands rejected, as on date the right to perform pooja is still available and cannot be interfered with.

2. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that, as on date, one Balamurugan is performing the pooja. Since the petitioner’s claim to be the hereditary trustee has already been rejected, he cannot be permitted to perform the pooja. Further, the petitioner is aged about 75 years and it is not possible for the department to appoint him as an Archagar.

3. I have considered the rival submission made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

4. It is not in dispute that as far as the claim of hereditary trustee is concerned, the same was negatived and now the matter is pending before the Civil Court in O.S.No.398 of 2024. Now the petitioner claims right to perform pooja by way of a customary right and he is not claiming to be appointed as the Archagar by the respondent authorities. In this regard, the observations made by this Court earlier in M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.26518 of 2017 is to be considered and paragraph No.5 of the said Order is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“5. In view of the fact that the suit for the purpose of declaring the petitioner as hereditary trustee is pending, the taking over of charge of the fit person in respect of the temple can be only subject to the result of the final judgment that may be passed in the suit filed by the petitioner. In view of the same, making it clear that the fit person shall not interfere with the right of