| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 4331
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : WA. No. 1328 of 2026 & CMP. No. 12345 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN |
| Parties : S. Kumar Versus The Secretary, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Avinash Wadhwani, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, V. Chandra Prabhu, Government Advocate, R4, K. Kumaran, Government Pleader. |
| Date of Judgment : 16-06-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Subject
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations / Sections Mentioned:
- None
2. Catch Words:
- Writ of mandamus
- Ubayadarar
- Donor
- Arbitrary restriction
- Civil rights
- Civil court
- Writ jurisdiction
3. Summary:
The appellant sought a writ of mandamus to allow unrestricted access to the Arunachaleswarar Temple for the milk abishegam ritual as a donor. The Single Judge permitted access on one non‑festival day chosen in advance, balancing donor rights with temple administration. On appeal, counsel argued that this modification was arbitrary and sought twice‑weekly access. Respondents highlighted logistical constraints with approximately 150 donors. The Court held that the Single Judge’s order was reasonable, did not extinguish the appellant’s donor rights, and that any grievance over the 2003 agreement is a civil matter, not a writ matter. No error, illegality, or arbitrariness was found. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.50593 of 2025 dated 07.01.2026.)
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07.01.2026 in WP No.50593 of 2025, the present appeal has been filed.
2. The appellant herein knocked the doors of the writ court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit him and person accompanying him to have access to the Arunachaleswarar Temple at Tiruvannamalai to witness and participate in the milk abishegam ritual performed in the mulasthanam of the deity, as an ubayadarar/donor.
3. The learned Single after hearing both sides, disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:
“5. The temple allows the Ubayadar to choose any one of the normal days except festival days, as marked in the temple calendar. Therefore, the petitioner shall, well in advance, select a day of his choice and be present as Ubayadar, and the respondents shall also permit the petitioner and three others accompanying him to be present as Ubayadar on that particular day.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.”
4. The learned counsel submitted that the unilateral modification of the conditions set forth in the proceedings dated 02.02.2003, which previously allowed broader access, was arbitrary and erroneous. It was pleaded that the appellant should be permitted to attend the temple at least twice a week, specifically on Mondays and Thursdays, given his long-standing practice and donor status.
5. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 argued that there are approximately 150 recognized Ubayadarars. If each donor, along with three accompanying persons, claims unrestricted daily access, it would create logistical impossibilities and immense hardship for other devotees. It was submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned, balanced and warrants no interference.
6. We have heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The core issue raised is whether the restriction imposed by the learned Single Judge amounts to an arbitrary curtailment of the appellant’s rights.
8. The order of the learned Single Judge does not extinguish the appellant’s right as an Ubayadarar. Rather, it regulates the exercise of such right by allowing the appellant to select one non-festival day of his choice, to enable the authorities permit him and the accompanying personnel. This ensures that the appellant can still participate in the ritual of Milk Abishegam, albeit on a scheduled basis.
9. The appellant is not the sole Ubayadarar of the temple. There are approximately 150 donors, many of whom have contributed sums equal to or greater than the appellant. Granting unrestricted or frequent access to one donor would set an unmanageable precedent. Accommodating all 150 donors under such expanded terms would be virtually impossible and would cause significant disruption to the temple’s administration and the worship experience of the general public.
10. To the extent the appellant feels aggrieved by the alleged violation of the original conditions contained in the proceedings dated 02.02.2003, such grievances pertain to civil rights of the appellant arising from the donation agreement. The appropriate remedy for such disputes lies before the civil court, not through writ jurisdiction. Therefore, we are not dilating on the decisions relied on by learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, about the significance of kattalai [special service].
11. We find no error, illegality, or arbitrariness in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The direction to allow the appellant to choose one day in advance strikes a fair balance between the rights of the donor and the administrative necessities of the temple.
In the light of the above, we do not see any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP No.12345 of 2026 is closed.
|
| |
