Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 27108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
T.Kalaimani – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Dept – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Petitioners: Mr.VR. Vishnu
For the Respondents: Mr.N.R.R. Arun Natarajan Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4
Worshippers entitled to pray in temple subject to regulations; cannot interfere with official poojaris post-departmental takeover.
Headnote:First Paragraph: Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, writ petition filed seeking mandamus against temple authorities for interfering with worship rights. Petitioners claim hereditary trusteeship via trust deed dated 22.01.1999, performing pujas rotationally among families. Temple taken over by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in June 2024; notice issued for accounts. Court finds worshippers entitled to enter and offer prayers subject to regulations, but administration regulated by department post-takeover. Second Paragraph: Issues framed as right to worship versus administrative control over poojas. Ratio: Devotees' fundamental right to worship subject to reasonable regulations; cannot interfere with appointed poojaris or administration. Court observes no obstruction to worship allowed, per respondents' undertaking. Last Paragraph: Writ petition disposed of permitting petitioners to offer prayers and perform pooja without obstruction or disturbance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek mandamus against pooja interference post-department takeover. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. rival claims on worship rights versus administrative poojaris. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. worship allowed subject to regulations; no interference with poojaris. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. petition disposed permitting regulated worship. (Para 10) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent not to interfere with the right of the Petitioners to worship and perform poojas in Arulmigu Mannarsamy Sametha Pachaiyamman Temple situated at Chettikulam Hill, Polur Road, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are worshippers belonging to one of the families and performing poojas in the aforesaid Temple. According to the petitioners’ their forefathers were Trustees of the Temple and a Trust Deed dated 22.01.199 was also executed in this regard. It is the stand of the petitioners that the poojas in the said Temple have been performed in a rotational manner among five groups of families, each allotted specific days in every Tamil month.
3. While so, the Temple administration was taken over by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in June 2024. Thereafter, the 4th Respondent issued a notice dated 10.05.2025 calling upon petitioners to furnish certain accounts relating to Temple collections. The petitioners have submitted a reply and sought time; however, according to them, the 4th respondent, without any authority, has been interfering with their right to perform pooja and worship in the Temple. Aggrieved by such interference, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, being worshippers and they are entitled to perform poojas on the allotted days. He further submitted that it is the fundamental right to worship and hence, the petitioners cannot be prevented from performing pooja. In the light of the above, he prayed for issuance of appropriate directions.
5. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that separate poojaris have been appointed for conducting the poojas in the temple and the petitioners cannot claim an exclusive right to perform pooja. He further submitted that the petitioners, who are worshippers, are always entitled to offer prayers, however, they cannot interfere with the administration of the Temple or disturb the functioning of the appointed poojaris.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are worshippers of the Temple. It is the right of a devotee to enter a Temple and offer worship, subject to reasonable regulations imposed by the Temple administration.
8. At the same time, once the Temple has been brought under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the administration, including the conduct of poojas, is to be regulated in accordance with law and by the authorities concerned. The petitioners cannot insist on performing poojas in a manner that would interfere with the administration or the duties of the appointed poojaris.
9. However, the apprehension of the petitioners that they are being prevented from even offering worship cannot be countenanced. The respondents are duty bound to ensure that no obstruction is caused to any devotee in offering worship, subject to the established procedures of the Temple.
10. Recording the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents this Court permit the petitioners to offer their prayers and perform pooja in the said Temple, without any obstruction or without causing disturbances to others.
