##PAGE1##

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23-10-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE P.MURUGAN WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026 CNR:{HCMD011531332026}

S.Veeraraghavan S/o Sampath

147, North Chithra Street, Srirangam, Trichy-620006 ..Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No. 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034

2. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034.

3. The Joint Commissioner Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam, Srirangam, Trichy

4. The Executive Trustee Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam, Srirangam, Trichy ..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith take all steps as may be required to ensure that the vacancy in the Peetham of the Sriranganarayana Jeeyar Madam gets filed so that the services required to be rendered in the Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam as per the traditions customs and usages be rendered by the newly ascended Sriranganarayana Jeeyar, within a time period stipulated by this Court and pass such other orders and thus render justice.

For Petitioner: Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan For Respondents: Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, Addl. Advocate General, Asst. by Mr.M.P.Senthil, Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2.

Mr.M.Saravanan for R3 & R4

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioner hails from Srirangam. He claims to be an ardent devotee of Arulmigu Sri Ranganathaswamy. He belongs to Sri Vaishnava Tenkalai sect. He is a sishya of the Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar Mutt. The Srirangam Ranganathaswamy Temple is the foremost of the 108 Divyadesams. He is aggrieved by the non-filling up of the vacancy in the office of the Pontiff of Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar Mutt. Hence, this Public Interest Litigation.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General straight away submitted that steps will be taken so that the said Mutt has a Head within six months.

4. We wondered if a PIL is maintainable in such cases. The answer was found in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2016) 2 SCC 725. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the argument that the writ petition before them was founded on a cause relating to appointment in a public office and hence not entertainable as a public interest litigation would be too simplistic a solution to adopt to answer the issues that have been highlighted which concerns the religious faith and practice of a large number of citizens of the country and raises claims of century-old traditions and usage having the force of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court felt impelled to answer the issues raised before it on the merits thereof in view of the gravity of the issues thrown up for consideration.

5. The Madras High Court has been more forthcoming on the point in Ma.Gouthaman Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2012 SCC Online Mad 4201. It was held that if there was any inaction on the part of the State in initiating action in a matter of public concern, the Court can give a direction to the Government in exercise of its judicial discretion in a PIL.

That case pertained to the appointment of a successor of a Mutt.

6. Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to the administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu. The expression “religious institution” has been defined in Section 6(18) of the Act as meaning a Math. The term “math” has been defined in Section 6(13) as meaning a Hindu Religious Institution with properties attached thereto and presided over by a person, the succession to whose office devolves in accordance with the direction of the Founder of the institution or regulated by usage. Chapter IV of the Act deals