Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43634
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mohammed Shaffiq, J
Velmurugan – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.Ganapathy
For the Respondents: S.Yogaraja Sekar
The High Court will not grant a writ of mandamus for temple-related management disputes when a specific statutory remedy exists under the governing religious endowments legislation.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct state authorities to provide police protection for attending a temple festival and to collect contributions from him, alleging obstruction by private respondents in exercising his hereditary rights as a pangali. The petitioner claimed the right based on historical participation, despite prior court orders recording no-objection from obstructing parties. The court, upon noting that the subject matter entails temple management issues, observed that such matters fall under the purview of a specific statutory framework. The main issue was whether the High Court should intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy exists. The court, citing the existence of the relevant temple management legislation, determined that the grievance should be addressed through appropriate statutory channels provided by law rather than through a writ of mandamus. The writ petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in the manner known to law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's authority to dispose of a writ petition at the admission stage based on counsel consent. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. basis of the petitioner's claim concerning temple rights and historical obstruction by third parties. (Para 3) |
| 3. requirement to exhaust statutory remedies for temple management disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER
By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 20.05.2026 and to issue appropriate directions to the 5th respondent to provide police protection, ensure his participation in the temple festival, facilitate the collection of pangali vari from him and take necessary action against respondents 7 and 8 for their unlawful conduct.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner belongs to the Marudhakula Nadar community and claims hereditary rights as a pangali in the Arulmigu Sri Annamar Swamy, Sri Kannimar Swamy and Sri Karupparayan Swamy Temple situated at Goundampalayam. The petitioner contends that his father, Late Arumugam, was a recognized pangali who actively participated in the temple festivals and rituals and that such right have devolved upon him by succession.
3.1. According to the petitioner, although three out of the four pangali groups have accepted his participation, the 7th and 8th respondents have been unlawfully preventing him from participating in the temple festivals and rituals. On 14.04.2021, when the petitioner attempted to perform Pongal during the temple festival, respondents 7 and 8 allegedly obstructed him and his supporters, resulting in the registration of CSR No.39 of 2021.
3.2. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P. No.12314 of 2022, wherein this Court, by order dated 11.05.2022, recorded the undertaking of the contesting respondents that they had no objection to the petitioner performing the temple rituals and allowed the same. Despite the said order, the respondents 7 and 8 allegedly continued to exclude the petitioner from participating in the temple festival.
3.3. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
20.05.2026, to the official respondents seeking intervention and police protection to ensure his participation in the temple festival and collection of pangali vari. As no effective action was taken, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents1 to 6 would submit that the temple in question is governed by HR & CE Act and petitioner may approach the statutory authority therein. On this being pointed out, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that they may be granted liberty to approach the appropriate Authority.
5. In view thereof, this Court disposes of this writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of grievance, if any, in the manner known to law.
6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition (Criminal) stand disposed of. No Costs.
