(Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Praying to issue a Writ of Ceriorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impunge notice passed by the 2 nd respondent Na.Ka.No.3225/2025/AA1 dated 21.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1 st respondent and 2 nd respondent to approve the hereditary trustees for the period 2026 – 2029 in terms of the Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and consequently, directing the respondent to follow the scheme in O.A.No.47 of 1977 dated 02.08.1977.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned notice dated 21.11.2025 and consequently, to direct the first and second respondents to approve the petitioner as hereditary trustee of the Arulmighu Chilambani Chidambara Vinayagar Temple, Devakottai, for the period 2026 – 2029 in terms of Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, by following the Scheme in O.A.No.47 of 1977, dated 02.08.1977.

2. I have considered the submissions made by Mr.V.Nirmalkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Sarangam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1,2 and 4.

3. The factual back-ground in which this writ petition arises is that the temple in question is governed by the Scheme framed under the Act. Originally, the scheme is said to have been framed in O.A.No.270 of 1945 by the then Board under Section 64(5)(a) of the Madras HR&CE Act, 1959. Thereafter, the said scheme is superseded and modified by order dated 06.09.1970 in O.A.No.59 of 1969. As per the modified scheme, the Temple should be administered by five trustees of whom two trustees should be from VR and AL family, Devakottai. Clause No.9 of the modified scheme is extracted hereunder:

               “9.The Executive Officer shall be the person entitled to sue and be sued in the name of the temple.”

4. Thereafter, it is seen that on behalf of the family, O.A.No.47 of 1976 was filed and order was passed on 02.08.1977 and the operative portion reads as follows:

               “The application be and is hereby allowed and it is declared that the office of the trusts of the suit temple is hereditary.”

5. On consideration of the order passed in the said O.A, the following operative portion thereof is extracted hereunder:

               “The first petitioner Murugappan Chettiar, son of Veerappa Chettiar, aged about 62 was examined as P.W.1 Silambani Chidambaram Vinayakar Kovil was built up by the petitioner's forefathers. The petitioner belongs to Veerappa Chettiar branch. The 2nd petitioner belongs to AL Family, Genealogical table is marked as EX. A. 1. The Ramand Rani has executed a gift Settlement Deed in 1807 which is marked as Ex. A.2. at present all are having dharsanam in the temple. The temple is managed by the member of the both of the families. In O.A.No.270 of 1945 the trustees has to be elected by the both the families. In 1969 the scheme was modified. In O.A59/69 both the families were to be given preference notice was issued by the department 1972 and on 11.07.1972 the reply was sent by the petitioner. The suit was dismissed as per the provisions of the Act 24 of 76. The management of the temple is not applicable was vested with the Executive Officer. The temple is managed hereditarily by the petitioner and his forefathers and as such he assorts that the Act is not applicable to said suit temple and he must be declared as the trustee of the said temple.”

6. Thus, when the authority has taken note of the earlier scheme that is framed, it is not specifically mentioned by him that whether he is modifying the earlier scheme or the scheme is superseded by a new scheme. It is not clear that whether the two members of the family are declared as the hereditary trustees as such, they were to replace the 5 members board earlier mentioned or simply that the office of the two trustees alone declared hereditary trustees instead of election by the members of the family. In between the Government Order is also based on the earlier scheme which was originally framed. Therefore, the entire contention in this case is on account of the different orders that were passed in the years 1970 – 1976, it is for the first respondent now to take up the issue considering both the schemes that are framed. All persons interested in respect of the temple shall also be heard. A scheme with clarity be arrived at. Only because of the discrepancies with reference to the scheme, several writ petitions are being filed before this Court and this Court was also giving directions to go as per the scheme. But after going through the scheme, it is difficult to decipher what exactly exists, as on date. In respect of the administration of the temple, if the schemes are framed, there must be clarity.

7. In view thereof, this Writ Petition stands disposed of on the following terms:

               (i) The first respondent is directed to take up suo motu revision with reference to O.A.No.59 of 1969 and order dated 26.09.1970 and O.A.No.47 of 1976 and order dated 02.08.1977 and issue notice to the petitioner as well as any other members of the family or any other persons, who will be interested in the affairs of the temple.

               (ii) The scheme shall be framed in clear terms as to how many trustees will be there, if so, whether all the trustees will be hereditary trustees, whether they shall be appointed or by election or turn basis or whether the temple should be governed by non-hereditary trustees also be hybrid board eve.

               (iii) As far as the family concerned, the trusteeship should be held as hereditary, shall also be considered and the scheme be framed.

               (iv) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of web copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order.

               (v) In the meanwhile, let the petitioner also submit an application within a period of one week and the first respondent should ensure that one member from both the families to be part of the Trust board, if they choose trustees in the meanwhile. The same will only be a temporary arrangement pending finalising of the scheme by the first respondent and thereafter, the trust board shall be recommitted as per the scheme. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.