(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to appoint a Special Officer or Fit Person to conduct the Margazhi Utsavam 2025-2026 and other routine Poojas in Arulmigu Vinayakar Temple, Vettaraya Perumal Bajanai Madam and Gadagadapan Temple (hereinafter referred to as the ‘temple’) situate the Muththampatti, Banapuram Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District by considering my representation, dated 23.11.2025.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a direction to appoint a Special Officer or a Fit Person to conduct the Margazhi Utsavam 2025-2026 and other routine poojas in Arulmigu Vinayagar temple, Vettaraya Perumal Bajanai Madam and Gadagadapan temple, situated at Muththampatti, Banapuram village, Mettur taluk, Salem district by considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 23.11.2025.

2. Upon hearing Mr.T.S.Vijaya Raghavan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate (HR & CE) for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate for the third respondent and Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent, it can be seen that these temples are located in Banapuram village. On account of the differences of opinion and leading to escalation of conflict relating to the management of the temple and conduct of the festival, a Peace Committee Meeting was said to have been conducted by the third respondent. Fearing further escalation of conflict, the third respondent has ordered that the temple be kept closed. Under the said circumstances, the present Writ Petition is filed to open the temple for the purpose of the conduct of the daily bhajanai during the month of Margazhi, which is going to expire shortly and the culmination festival on the first day of Thai.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and everyone in the village are entitled to participate and the fourth respondent does not have any right to be in the management and he has already filed an application under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) before the first respondent.

4. The contention of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that the application filed under Section 63(b) of the Act will be disposed of in the manner known to law. The temple is not a listed temple and so far, no appointment is made in respect of the temple and so far, it is being managed by the village people. They do not know who is actually in the management of the temple so far.

5. The contention of learned Government Advocate for the third respondent is that there cannot be any breach of peace in the village, especially, on the first day of Thai during Pongal festival and therefore, only fearing backlash among the village public, the temple was ordered to be closed as there was no solution in the Peace Committee Meeting.

6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent is that the fourth respondent in the management of the temple, being part of the Committee chosen by the villagers and the fourth respondent is only administering the temples and the fourth respondent and the other Committee members will conduct the festival and they are ready if the temple is open. Their rights cannot be prematurely dislodged by the petitioner. Even for the current year, the fourth respondent is willing to conduct the festival and the petitioner can also participate in the same. Additionally, the learned Counsel would also submit that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of the fact that the petitioner has also filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.69 of 2023 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur. The same is with reference to the very same temple management and the prayer that is sought for is permanent injunction.

7. In reply thereof, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is true that the petitioner didn't mention about the suit, but, the same was not willful or wanton. As far as this year is concerned, even if the fourth respondent conducts the festival, the petitioner is willing to participate in the same peacefully, but, let the temple be opened and merely because the fourth respondent conducts the festival, the fourth respondent or the Committee should not claim any special right.

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

9. The temples are in the village and traditionally, it seems that during the month of Margazhi, everyday, bhajanai will be conducted and the culmination festival will be on the first day of Thai. Admittedly, the dispute has arisen between the parties and it remains to be seen who has the right to manage the temple. The same can only be decided by the first respondent in the application under section 63(b) of the Act that is said to have been filed by the petitioner. In the said application, let the first respondent issue notice to the petitioner, the fourth respondent and any other person interested in the temple. Let the issue be decided and the affairs of the temple can thereafter be governed by the order of the first respondent in that regard.

10. In the interregnum, since the month of Margazhi itself is going to get over on 14.01.2026 and the culmination festival is on the Pongal day i.e., on 15.01.2026, in order to resolve the impasse, the following temporary arrangement is ordered and this will not give right to any of the parties concerned in any manner whatsoever:-

                     (i) The fourth respondent himself shall conduct the culmination festival and shall also open the temple for conducting bhajanai and also for the villagers to worship. The petitioner or any other person of the village cannot be prohibited from entering the temple or participating;

                     (ii) The parties should not indulge in any kind of altercation, negotiation in the temple or near the temple. Everybody should only do either the bhajanai or the pooja and come out of the temple. All the usual rituals attached to the bhajanai as well as the culmination festival can be conducted by the fourth respondent and other devotees;

                     (iii) The third respondent is requested to handover the key to the fourth respondent for the purpose of conduct of the festival. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall debut any one subordinate official to ensure that there is no any altercation between the parties tomorrow (i.e., on 13.01.2026) and day after tomorrow (i.e., on 14.01.2026) in the early morning for the bhajanai between 5.30 A.M to 7.30 A.M and also to observe the proceedings on 15.01.2026 i.e., on the day of culmination festival ensuring that there is no altercation. If there is any altercation between the parties or there is going to be any violence, immediately, the same shall be reported to the local Police Station who can take such steps in accordance with law upon such receipt of information;

                     (iv) The order is passed only on the undertaking given by both the sides that there will not be any violence relating to the conduct of the festival of the temple;

                     (v) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 63(b) of the Act shall be decided by the first respondent as expeditiously as possible, in any event within a period of four months from today;

                     (vi) The authorities shall act upon the web-copy of this order without waiting for a certified copy of this order;

11. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.