BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD).No.5899 of 2026 R.Mohandoss ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Plot No.49, M.R.S. Nagar, Mullipadi Village, Seelapadi Post, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 2. The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni, Office at Office of Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.6-2-1, T.B.N. Road, Palanichettipatti, Theni District.

3. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Suyambu Saneeshwara Bhagavan Temple, Kuchanoor, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.204/2026/Aa1 dated 28.01.2026 issued to the petitioner and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : Dr.C.Guhaseelarupan For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader ORDER The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

28.01.2026 and quash the same.

2. Heard Mr.Dr.C.Guhaseelarupan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. By the impugned order dated 28.01.2026, a ‘Fit Person’ was appointed to take care of the management of Arulmigu Suyambu Saneeshwara Bhagavan Temple, Kuchanoor, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the said temple. Prior to the petitioner, the petitioner’s father and brother were the hereditary trustees. It is the petitioner’s case that he is entitled to be recognized as the hereditary trustee. Without any allegation or affording any opportunity, the impugned order has been passed, despite the petitioner managing the temple without any proven misconduct. Therefore, he cannot be removed from the management of the temple.

5. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to file an application under Section 54 of the (HR & CE) Act, 1959, for recognition as a hereditary trustee, and until such time, he should not be removed from the management of the temple.

6. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader, taking notice on behalf of the respondents, would submit that the temple property has already been alienated, and therefore, an enquiry is required in this regard. Only if the petitioner is found to have no role in the alleged transaction he can be recognized as a hereditary trustee and permitted to continue in management.

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

8. It may be true that if a hereditary trustee indulges in mismanagement, appropriate action must follow. However, the alleged act of mismanagement by an erstwhile hereditary trustee cannot automatically be attributed to the petitioner. If the petitioner is willing to take steps to restore the alienated property to the temple, it is open to him to file an application under Section 54 of the (HR & CE) Act, 1959, seeking recognition as a hereditary trustee. Upon such application being filed, the respondent shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders regarding such recognition.

9. Ordinarily, in the absence of any proven allegation, this Court would have set aside the order appointing a ‘Fit Person’ and permitted the petitioner to continue in the management of the temple.

10. However, in the present case, it is seen that property dedicated to the temple by the petitioner’s own family members has subsequently been alienated