BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.04.2026 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8429 and 8431 of 2026

1.The Hereditary Trustee, Arulmigu Ayyanar Temple, Chinathamani, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District Represented By V.A.Rajaraman, Residing At

68/99, Velar Street, Arapalayam, Madurai – 625 016. ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, B1 Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai - 625016

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, B1 Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai 625016.

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kalyana Sundereswar Temple, Avaniyapuram South, Madurai

4.S.Gomathi Vijayan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Impugned Order passed by the 2nd respondent in her proceedings Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1357/2018/E3 dated 29.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner :Dr.C.Guhaseelarupan For R1 to R3 :Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

29.01.2026.

2.By the said order, the fit person is directed to take charge of the temple namely Arulmigu Iyyanar Temple, Chinthamani, Madurai South Taluk, until the Trust Board takes charge.

3.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is claiming to be the hereditary trustee of the said temple. He has already filed an application before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner to recognize him as hereditary trustee and the same is pending in O.A.No.33 of 2024. While so, earlier when a fit person was appointed, the same came to be challenged in the revision application, the appointment itself was set aside on the ground that no notice was given to the persons who are all already managing the temple and the order itself was not served on them and that being the position, the present order also commits the very same mistake.

4.When the petitioner is supposed to be in control of the affairs of the temple, without any notice and without any allegation against him, the order of appointment of fit person came to be passed. The learned counsel would also bring to the notice that earlier when there was inter- se claim and the dispute with reference to Poojariship, two writ petitions were filed, the petitioner filed W.P(Crl)(MD)No.1006 of 2026 for a prayer directing the respondents therein to provide adequate police protection for the Temple festival. The private respondents herein had filed W.P(Crl)(MD)No.1008 of 2026 for the very same relief for them to perform the duty as karaitharars. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court holding that the private respondents will be representing the karaitharars and the petitioner claims to be Poojariship of the temple and permitting the festival to be celebrated. Thereafter, it was held to be kept under lock and key until the competent authority decides the issue. The petitioner himself filed an appeal in W.A(MD)Nos.423 and 424 of 2026 and the Division Bench of this Court had interfered with the order of the learned Single Judge and held that the O.A shall be disposed of on their own merits, until such time, the Temple shall be kept open and the fit person appointed shall take charge of the Temple and its administration.

5.The learned counsel would submit that in his anxiousness to open the temple, the petitioner has filed the writ appeal. Even though the Division Bench had directed the fit person to take charge, that does not in any manner decide the right of the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity or in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner, the very exercise of appointment of the fit person and taking charge of the fit person is erroneous in law. Even in the order o