Management of temples under the H.R. & C.E. Act requires adherence to procedural laws, allowing for civil remedies when disputes arise.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned orders dated

18.11.2025 and 23.12.2025.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perusing the material records of the case, it could be seen that by the communication dated 18.11.2025, Arulmigu Shri Vinayaga Peruman and Kaliyamman Thirukovil is enlisted to be a temple under the administration of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department [hereinafter referred to as "H.R. & C.E."] and by the proceedings dated 23.12.2025, the charge is directed to be handed over to the Fit Person appointed in respect of the said temple.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the strength of the consent given by all the villagers, the petitioner is in de facto management of the temple. They were looking after the affairs of the temple in a proper manner. There are no assets for the temple and the festival is being conducted in a grand manner. While so, suddenly now the temple has been taken over and a Fit Person has been appointed and they are sought to be divested of the de facto management even though no proven allegation made. Even in the show cause notice issued for taking over of the Temple, no proper reasons have been adduced. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader, taking notice on behalf of the respondents, would submit that upon receipt of certain complaints, the show cause notice was issued. The show cause notice clearly mentions that complaints were received and therefore, the temple is proposed to be taken over and an opportunity, as per Section 71 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, has been given. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he can file a civil suit as provided under Section 72 of the Act. As far as the taking over of the management is concerned, once the Fit Person is appointed, in the absence of any trustees, it is for the Fit Person to manage the affairs of the temple. There is unrest among the people of the village and therefore, it is necessary that the Fit Person should manage the temple properly.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made and perused the material records of the case.

6. Even though no detailed allegations are expressly mentioned, when the show cause notice mentions the reason that a complaint has been received in respect of mismanagement of the temple, it cannot be said that the procedure under Section 71 of the Act has not at all been followed. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the petitioner, if aggrieved by the takeover of the temple, is entitled to file a civil suit as per the provision contained in Section 72 of the Act. The same has also not been filed. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is more concerned with the management of the day-to-day affairs of the temple. When the petitioner is not expressly appointed as a trustee, it cannot be said that the appointment of a Fit Person is wholly illegal. At the same time, let the Fit Person manage the temple. When the petitioner submits that they have to open the temple at 5:30 a.m. on auspicious days, etc., the poojari as well as the local villagers need not be prevented from opening and closing the temple and performing the day-to-day activities of the temple. Even with reference to the celebration of festivals, etc., they can celebrate in the usual manner with all the rituals. The Fit Person will only de jure manage the temple and with the involvement of the petitioner and others. The Department shall also take expeditious steps to appoint trustees fo