The Court directs administrative reconciliation through Peace Committee to resolve temple festival rights between rival groups.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.05.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY A.Muruganantham ... Petitioner Vs

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Nainarkovil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Thasildhar, Parmakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 5.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai District.

6.K.Ramachandran ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate police protection for conducting Vaikasi Temple festival of Arulmigu Thirukoluvoor Jaari Devasthanam Sri Athinaganatha Swamy Temple situated at Koluvoor Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, which is scheduled to held on 21.05.2026 to 31.05.2026 as per the customary Agama rites and sacraments I.e.permitting the private respondent clan members to conduct their Mandagapadi after downing the flag (kodiyerakam) on the 11^th day of festival dated 31.05.2026 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.05.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dinesh For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.side)

For R-4 : Mr.S.Vinodh, Government Advocate (Civil)

ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate Police protection for conducting the Vaikasi Temple festival of Arulmigu Thirukoluvoor Jaari Devasthanam Sri Athinaganatha Swamy Temple, situated at Koluvoor Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, which is scheduled to be held from 21.05.2026 to

31.05.2026, by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 02.05.2026.

2. Earlier, one Writ Petition was filed by one Mangaleshwari in W.P.(MD)

No.11184 of 2024. This Court, vide order dated 22.05.2024, passed the following order:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Agama, the Mandagapadi cannot be conducted after Kodiyirakkam. Therefore, the authorities are directed to accomodate the intervenor to conduct Mandagapadi prior to Kodiyirakkam. This order is applicable to this year only. If the intervenor's right is not determined, the same shall be followed by subsequent orders until his rights are determined.

3. Now, the petitioner, namely Muruganantham belongs to the said Mangaleshwari’s group. The said Mangaleshwari was conducting one Mandagapadi. The present petitioner is conducting one Mandagapadi. The 6^th respondent herein is the 5^th respondent in W.P.(MD) No.11184 of 2024, who is also conducting the 11^th day Mandagapadi. According to the petitioner, the Mandagapadi ought to be conducted after Kodiyirakkam, but the 6^th respondent is conducting it prior to Kodiyirakkam, which is not the customary practice. This Court, in the earlier Writ Petition, held that this practice is allowed only for that particular year. Now, the issue is pending before the fifth respondent till date. No order has been passed by the fifth respondent for this year and the said issue is still persisting.

4. Now, the petitioner claims that, taking advantage of the earlier order, the 6^th respondent is carrying out the Mandagapadi prior to Kodiyirakkam, which is affecting the Agama as well as the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the issue, directs the Tahsildar to conduct a Peace Committee Meeting by calling upon the petitioner, the 6^th respondent, and all other Mandagapaditharars and to pass appropriate orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With these directions, this Wr