Existing trustees must be consulted before appointing new non-hereditary trustees as per the HR & CE Act.

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, the appellant has filed the present writ appeals.

2. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.18557 of 2025 challenging the impugned order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.4245/2025/A1 dated 30.06.2025, by which a Fit Person was appointed to manage the affairs of Arulmighu Angala Parameshwari Amman Thirukovil, Urapuli Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner also filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.18558 of 2025 challenging the impugned notice dated 30.06.2025, whereby applications were invited for appointment as non-

hereditary trustees in respect of the aforesaid temple.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been a hereditary trustee for many years. Further, it is contended that even for the appointment of trustees under Section 47 of the HR & CE Act, existing trustees must be given an opportunity. According to the appellant, no such opportunity was provided. It is also submitted that the trustees, along with the villagers, have been managing the temple, and therefore, there is no necessity to appoint new trustees.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petitions. It is further contended that the relevant period has already expired and that the petitioner has not challenged any notification or appointment of non-hereditary trustees. It is also submitted that the petitioner and others have filed a suit in O.A. No.23 of 2003 for framing a scheme for the said temple and another suit in O.A. No.4 of 2025 seeking a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee, and both suits are still pending.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petitions and no interference is warranted.

5. We have heard the submissions on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. The petitioner claims to be a hereditary trustee. Admittedly, civil suits in this regard are pending. As the petitioner has not been declared or appointed as a hereditary trustee, his contention that he should have been heard before issuing any notification for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees under Section 47 cannot be accepted. It is also relevant to note that there are rival groups disputing the management of the temple. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the tenure of the earlier arrangement has already expired, and attempts were made to continue the administration, which necessitated the issuance of a notification for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees.

7. Be that as it may, since the issue relating to the appointment of a hereditary trustee is already pending before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously, as directed by the learned Single Judge. The appointment of a Fit Person will not take away the rights of any party. Once the rights of the parties are determined in the pending proceedings, such rights will prevail, and the parties may participate in the management of the temple accordingly.

8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ appeals and no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge.

9. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. It is made clear that both the O.As referred to in the order of the learned Single Judge shall be disposed of within the time frame directed by this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.