SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 29947

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
A.Muthupandi – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. – Respondent
WP CRL.(MD) No.1766 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Jeyamohan
For the Respondents:Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate, Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate(Crl. Side)

Mandamus enforces legal rights, not customary or hereditary practices.

Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct authorities to permit conducting a temple festival based on ancient customs and hereditary practices. The court found that mandamus enforces legal rights, not customary practices. The petitioner's claim as village headman was noted, but no legal right was established. The primary issue was whether mandamus could compel permission for customary temple festival. The court held it is settled law that mandamus issues only for legal rights, rendering the prayer unsustainable. The writ petition was disposed of, directing authorities to permit the petitioner to offer prayers, with liberty to challenge the Election Officer's order dated 25.03.2026 in a manner known to law.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks mandamus for temple festival permission per customs. (Para 1 , 2)
2. mandamus enforces legal rights, not customs; rival claim noted. (Para 3)
3. petition disposed; prayers permitted, challenge election order allowed. (Para 4)

ORDER

The present petition has been filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 4 to permit the petitioner to conduct the Sri Muthalamman Temple Festival at Siddhargal Natham village as per the ancient customs and hereditary practices by considering the representation given by the petitioner dated 19.03.2026.

2. As per the averment in the affidavit, the petitioner claims that he is the Headman of the village and he has got right to conduct the temple festival as per the ancient customs and hereditary practices.

3.It is the settled position of law that a mandamus can be issued to enforce the legal right and not to enforce any customary practises or hereditary practices. Therefore, the question of issuing any positive mandamus in favour of the petitioner as against the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to permit him to conduct the village is legally not sustainable. The learned counsel appearing for one Mr.Ramanujam submitted that the said Ramanujam is the 'Oor Aranmanaikarar' and the Election Officer, Nilakkottai Assembly Constituency, has granted permission in his favour to conduct the temple festival by way of proceedings dated 25.03.2026.

4.In view of the above said facts the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the authorities to permit the petitioner to offer his prayers. As far as the order dated 25.03.2026 issued by the Election Officer, Nilakkottai Assembly Constituency is concerned, it is left open to the petitioner to challenge the same in a manner known to law if he is so advised. No Costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top