BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.04.2026 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY A.Mahendran ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Dindigul.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Camp Office at P.C Patti, Theni

4.The Executive Officer, A/m Pulantheeswarar Thiru Kovil, Chinnamanur, Theni District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 13.03.2026 sent by the petitioner to permit us to conduct the 4^th day Mandagapadi during the festival conducted in Chithirai Tamil month in A/M.Pulantheeswarar Thiru Kovil, Chinnamanur, to receive Pathakanikkai from the petitioner.

For Petitioner :Mr.S.K.Mani For Respondents :Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.03.2026 to permit the petitioner and others to conduct the 4th day Mandagapati during the festival conducted in Chithirai Tamil month in Arulmighu Pulantheeswarar Thirukovil, Chinnamanur and to receive Pathakanikkai from the petitioner.

2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it is the case of the petitioner that it was a traditional right of the petitioner and others residing in the particular street to conduct the 4th day Mandagapati in the concerned temple. There was also dispute earlier between the parties and the same was settled by way of a compromise decree in OS.No.265 of 2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam, as per the same, the Mandagapati was being conducted. While so, on account of COVID-19 pandemic and some skirmish happening during the year 2019, there was some problem thereafter, the said festivities to be conducted is not being permitted. The customary right that is prevalent is now being taken away.

3.The learned counsel would rely upon the judgment in W.P(MD)No.8225 of 2019 whereby after taking note of the fact that original application No.15 of 1989 was filed and it was dismissed and subsequently O,S.No.265 of 2001 was decreed and therefore, the permission was also granted to remit the Pathakanikkai as it is traditionally done. The learned counsel therefore would submit that for this year also similar permission should be given as they are willing to give an undertaking that there will not be any disturbance and the ceremony will be conducted with due fervor and bhakti.

4.The learned counsel would further submit that only the suit for damage is filed and only orally insisting to withdraw the same, permission is not being granted. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is also willing to withdraw the suit provided permission is being now granted.

5.Per Contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that up to the year 2019 and the permission was being granted. In the year 2019, there was problem between two groups, some of the members came in an inebriated condition at the place of Mandagapadi and even try to take away the idols. It is at this stage, the Mandagapadi was stopped and the people of the particular street used to come to the temple and the fourth day Mandagapadi is being performed and they are taking part of it.

6.Under the said circumstances, O.A.No.11 of 2021 was filed to determine the rights of both parties. Ultimately by judgment dated 30.04.2025, now it is decided by the Joint Commissioner, after hearing the parties of both sides have not proved the existence of any right. In that scenario, once again, no rights can be claimed by the petitioner before this Court.

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