| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 1621
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : WP No. 7771 of 2026 & W.M.P. Nos. 8373 & 8374 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY |
| Parties : P. Sriraman Versus The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: A. Rajakumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R4, N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader, R5 & R6, C.E. Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl.Side), R7, L. Muthuswamy, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 25-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
2. Catch Words:
- Writ of Certiorari
- Private temple
- Public temple
- Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments
- Public Interest Litigation
3. Summary:
The petition under Article 226 seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order permitting a granite inscription and police protection at a temple claimed to be private. The petitioner argues the temple is private and beyond the jurisdiction of the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments (HRCE) authority. The seventh respondent contends the temple is public, citing a prior civil decree, and that the inscription contains only the temple’s name and devotional text. The Court notes no declaration exists that the temple is private, so the presumption of a public temple stands. The petitioner may approach a civil court for ownership claims. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, with directions for the inscription’s content to be approved by the Joint Commissioner.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 made in Na.Ka.No.526/2024/E2 passed by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.)
1. The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 made in Na.Ka.No.526/2024/E2.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the temple in question is a private temple belonging to the petitioner. The Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment authorities or the seventh respondent does not have any right over the same. While so, the seventh respondent filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.39980 of 2024 praying for permission to install a granite stone inscription at the said temple site and the same was also dismissed by this Court. However, thereafter now the very same permission to erect a granite stone inscription is granted and further police protection is also sought for for the purpose of erection. The authorities cannot grant such permission in respect of a private temple and in any event the police protection ought not to have been ordered by the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment authorities.
3. Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader taking notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, would submit that on a perusal of the earlier order in the Public Interest Litigation, it will be clear that the seventh respondent was directed to give a representation and that it will be considered. The inscription does not contain any personal name or other particulars. It is only the name of the temple and other particulars such as Thala Varalaru, which alone will be permitted in the inscription.
4. Mr.L.Muthuswamy, the learned counsel taking notice on behalf of the seventh respondent would submit that the matter is already decided by the civil Court in O.S. No.678 of 1987 against the forefathers of the petitioner himself that the temple is not a private temple and it is a public temple and the name of the deity is also decided. There is nothing wrong in making an inscription which is only going to contain the name of the temple and not the name of any individual or a resident of the village or even the name of the sponsors.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
6. As on date, there is no declaration in favour of the petitioner that it is a private temple owned by him. In the absence of such a declaration, the presumption is that the temple is a public temple. If the petitioner claims that the temple belongs to him, it will be open for him to approach the appropriate Civil Court and seek such remedies. Therefore, this writ petition at the behest of the petitioner cannot be entertained.
7. The submission made on behalf of the seventh respondent that the inscription will contain only the name of the temple is recorded. It is further made clear that the inscription can contain only the name of the temple and the Thala Varalaru or any other message relating to devotion alone. No individual names or caste names or any content which will directly or indirectly point out the dominance or pride relating to any caste can be contained in the inscription. Let the temple be worshipped by all devotees in a secular manner. The Joint Commissioner/second respondent shall also approve the contents of the inscription before the inscription is made. As and when the draft is produced before the Joint Commissioner, the approval with or without any correction shall be granted within two weeks therefrom. This order will not in any manner preclude the rights of the petitioner, if he claims that the temple is a private temple, to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court.
8. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.8373 of 2026 is ordered and W.M.P.No.8374 of 2026 is closed.
|
| |
