logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7210 print Preview print Next print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : WP.(MD). No. 28924 of 2026 & WMP.(MD). No. 21910 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Parties : M. Veerabahumoorthi Versus The District Collector, Thoothukudi & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: G. Thalaimuthurasu, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, R. Parthiban, SGP, R3, M. Muthugeethaiyan, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 05-10-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned

- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- HR&CE Act (Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act)

2. Catch Words

- Jurisdiction
- Impugned order
- Writ of certiorari
- HR&CE Act / HR&CE Department
- Temple administration / lock‑and‑key
- Civil court / civil suit
- Opening of temple / public worship
- No interference / directions to keep temple open
- Remedies / connected miscellaneous petition
- Costs

3. Summary
The petitioner challenges the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order dated 02.10.2026, alleging that the officer lacked jurisdiction to place the Sri Subramania Swami Kovil under the HR&CE Department’s control. The order merely directed that the temple remain open for public worship and did not adjudicate any property or other rights, directing parties to approach a civil court or the HR&CE authorities for such disputes. The court finds that the impugned order does not confer any administrative right to the HR&CE Department and therefore cannot be set aside. Consequently, the directions to keep the temple open and to refrain from interference stand. The petitioner is left to pursue appropriate remedies against the fourth respondent under the law. No costs are awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

4. Conclusion
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for records on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order issued by him in Na.Ka.A3/7430/2026 dated 02.10.2026 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.)

1. Order dated 02.10.2026 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur/second respondent, is challenged in this petition primarily on the ground that the second respondent does not have the jurisdiction to entrust the administration of the temple to the HR&CE Department.

2. Adverting to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the conditions imposed therein and to the operative paragraph of the order directing that the temple shall come under the control of the Joint Commissioner with effect from 05.10.2026. He contends that said direction was issued without the authority of law.

3. Mr. R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, and Mr.M.Muthugeethaiyan, learned counsel, accepts notice for the third respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the third respondent referred to documents relating to the Sri Subramania Swami Kovil, Tiruchendur, including documents annexed thereto, indicating that the Arulmigu Arasalvar Temple is a sub-temple of the Sri Subramania Swami Temple. He points out that all these documents were placed before the Revenue Divisional Officer. He adds that the temple in question has always been under the supervisory control of the HR&CE Department and that such control does not flow from the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the first and second respondents points out that the impugned order records categorically that no legal rights are being decided under the order and that the parties should approach either a civil court or the authorities under the HR&CE Act to resolve disputes.

6. On perusal of the affidavit in support of the writ petition, it is noticeable that the petitioner asserts that he is one of the members associated with the administration of the temple. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner is a trustee.

7. Reading the affidavit along with the impugned order, it is evident that the order was issued after hearing all parties concerned, including the petitioner. At page 23 of the paper book, in relevant part, it is recorded as under in the order:



8. As can be seen from the above extract, neither property nor other rights relating to the temple were adjudicated and it was made clear that the parties should approach either a civil court or the authorities under the HR&CE Act for the resolution thereof. After noticing that the temple had been placed under lock and key by rival claimants (the petitioner and the fourth respondent), directions were issued to ensure that the temple remains open for worship by the public. To that extent, no interference is warranted.

9. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in the penultimate paragraph, the order records as under:





10. Especially after holding that no property or other templerelated rights were being decided, the second respondent should not have issued the above direction in the impugned order. Any right asserted by the HR&CE Department over the temple should be traceable to other documents and not to this order. Clarifying that the right to administer the temple cannot be established by the HR&CE Department on the basis of impugned order dated 02.10.2026, this Writ Petition is disposed of by leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies against the fourth respondent in accordance with law.

11. As stated in paragraph 8 supra, the directions contained in the impugned order with regard to the opening of the temple and in relation to preventing the petitioner from interfering with the functioning of the temple shall stand and are not being interfered with. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal