Due procedures must be followed for the establishment of religious practices, and pending schemes do not obstruct such establishments.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.(MD) No.6691 of 2026 M.Subbarayalu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.52/A1, Tiruvananthanpuram Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, B23, 26th Cross Street, Maharaja Nagar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

4.The Fit Person, Arulmigu Navaneethakrishnasamy Temple, Kovilpatti, Kalakkadu, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, Office at : The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramaniyasamy Temple, Valliyur, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to take appropriate action to prevent unapproved Balalayam at Arulmigu Navaneetha Krishnasamy Temple, Kovilpathu, Kalakadu, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District and further permit the petitioner to undertake renovation as a donor to the Temple.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to take appropriate action to prevent the conduct of an unapproved Balalayam at Arulmigu Navaneetha Krishnasamy Temple, Kovilpathu, Kalakadu, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that from the approval granted by the State Level Expert Committee, it can be seen that only certain works were permitted. Therefore, without the express approval of the State Level Expert Committee or without obtaining any permission whatsoever, the Balalayam is now sought to be established. The same shall not be undertaken by the respondents without due permission. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner has filed O.A.No.10 of 2018 for framing a scheme in respect of the temple. Without framing the scheme, the respondents cannot proceed further with the Kudamuzhuku.

3. In reply thereto, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that due permission for the establishment of the Balalayam was granted by the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli–II, by virtue of the powers vested in him by the Circular of the Commissioner dated 09.07.2022. The permission was granted by the Joint Commissioner by an order dated 23.03.2026. In this case, the requirements for the conduct of the Kudamuzhukku have been duly followed and all the directions of the Hon’ble Division Bench have been complied with. The opinion of the Archaeology Department, the District Level Expert Committee report and the State Level Expert Committee report have all been obtained and thereafter, with due permission, the Balalayam is being established.

4. With reference to the framing of the scheme, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the draft scheme has already been published and is at the stage of inviting objections. The same will be continued and the pendency of the same will not be a bar for the conduct of the Kudamuzhukku.

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

6. From the order dated 23.03.2026 produced before this Court, I am satisfied that the Balalayam is being conducted after following due procedure. The l