The court emphasized the necessity of due process in administrative procedures concerning temple management.

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for a certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the order dated 24.11.2025, of the second respondent and the notices dated 19.01.2026 and 10.02.2026 of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to conduct a fair enquiry in taking over the administration and appoint the Thakkar / fit person to Arulmigu Arunagirinathar Thirukoil, Marudhamalai Adivaram, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that originally Arulmigu Arunagirinathar Arul Neri Krithigai Kazhagam Trust was constituted with pious and charitable objects and the premises was established and now is also maintained as Arunagirinathar Thirukoil. While so, in view of the efflux of time, when some of the members of the trust having been expired and when the affairs of the trust was going in a usual manner, a Show Cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.01.2024, directing him to show cause why the temple should not be brought under the control of the department. The petitioner had shown cause by his explanation dated 16.12.2024. However, thereafter nothing had taken place, neither the petitioner was called for any enquiry nor any order was communicated to him. Suddenly, now the impugned order and the consequential proceedings are served to him, as if the fit person is appointed and directing the petitioner to handover the management to the fit person. 3. The learned counsel submits that if any charge or mismanagement is alleged, then an enquiry ought to have been conducted before taking over the management. The petitioner is the de facto trustee of the endowment / temple.

Therefore, the impugned orders are illegal.

4. Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader submits that when it was found that the said temple which is also in the Maruthamalai Adivaram and its property became vulnerable, it was thought it fit to bring the same under the control and management of the department. In that regard, show cause notice was issued including to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the poojari and yet another person associated with the temple have already given statements stating no objection for taking over of the temple. Accordingly, by detailed consideration, an order was passed taking over the temple under the management of the department on 26.12.2024 itself. Thereafter, to facilitate the management, a fit person was appointed. The impugned order is not even the appointment of the fit person but change of fit person from one executive officer to another executive officer owing to the practical difficulties. Therefore, by challenging the same, the petitioner cannot retain himself in the management of the affairs of the temple.

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

6. It can be seen that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by describing him as Nadaimurai Nirvagi (eilKiw eph;thfp). When the petitioner has submitted his explanation and resisted the attempt, when the order was passed on 26.12.2024, it can be seen that only the statement of Murugesan who said no objection alone is referred, not even the explanation given by the petitioner is referred cited therein or reflected in the order. Therefore, when a Show Cause notice was issued and when the concerned person submits the explanation, the 4^th respondent ought to have considered the same before passing the order of taking over.

7. Be that as it may, since it is stated that the said order was not even communicated to the p