(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide No.3387/CHRI/2025/1380 dated 28.04.2026 and quash the same as illegal, improper and consequently direct the fourth respondent to constitute thirupani committee in consultation with the Kattalai Thambiran.)

1. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The Commissioner (Hindu Religious Institutions), Government of Puducherry vide order No.4073/HRI/Ko.2/2022 dated 06.06.2022 constituted a Thirupani Committee for Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple, Karaikal. The committee was constituted for conducting Kumbabishegam for the said temple but the Commissioner did not consult the Kattalai Thambiran of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam before doing so. Hence, objection was lodged by the Kattalai Thambiran vide letter dated 01.08.2022. It was pointed out therein that constitution of the committee without such consultation was illegal. The department was called upon to recall the order dated 06.06.2022 and take steps to re-constitute the committee. Reliance was placed on the decree made in A.S.Nos.426 and 429 of 1999 passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. No action was taken on the said representation. Espousing the very same grievance, one Pazhanivelu (sixth respondent herein) also submitted a representation dated 01.12.2023. Since no action was taken on Pazhanivelu's representation also, he filed W.P.No.1322 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.03.2024 in the following terms:-

                     “4.Having regard to the limited nature of relief sought, this Court without expressing any view on the merits of the controversy involved, passes the following order:-

                     (i) the Fourth Respondent shall immediately examine the representation dated 01.12.2023 made by the Petitioner including ascertaining as to whether the Petitioner would be entitled for the relief claimed;

                     (ii) if it is found that any other details or supporting documents is necessary the deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing to the Petitioner requiring the same to be furnished within a time frame of not less than 10 days for the same;

                     (iii) in the event of not being satisfied with the requirements even thereafter, an enquiry shall be conducted affording full opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner, Sixth to Thirteenth Respondents and all other persons concerned to explain their position in that regard;

                     (iv) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken communicated under written acknowledgment, and

                     (v) the report of such compliance shall be filed by 31.08.2024 before the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court.”

3. It is relevant to note that Dharmapuram Adheenam figured as the sixth respondent in the said writ petition. The District Collector, Karaikal disposed of Thiru.Pazhanivelu's representation vide order dated 30.08.2024 in the following terms:-

                     “11.As such, the undersigned is of opinion that the petitioner in his representation dated 01.12.2023 seeks primarily the modification of the order dated 06.06.2022 issued by the HRI Department in consultation with the Kattalai Thambiran in appointing the Thiruppani Committee for the Angalamman/ Angalaparameshwari Temple, Athipadugai. Hence the undersigned advises the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions (HRI) Department regarding his grievance. The Commissioner, HRI is also requested to consider his representation and also to consult all the stake holders of Arulmighu Angalamman/ Angalaparameshwari Temple, Athipadugai including the E.O.(Temples), Kattalai Thambiran, Village People, Temple Devotees etc. with regard to the Thiruppani Committee and pass suitable orders. After such consultation, if needed the existing Thiruppani Committee may also be revamped in the interest of the temple and the devotees. With these instructions the petitioner's representation dated 01-12-2023 is disposed.”

4. While so, W.P.No.32814 of 2025 was filed by the Hereditary Sthanigar Society for Shree Dharbaneeswar Swamy Devasthanam and Sri Saneeswar Bagavan Temple for directing the Commissioner (HRI) to deal with their representation dated 25.04.2025. The petitioner therein wanted this Court to direct the Commissioner (HRI) to form Thirupani Committee for conducting the Kumbabishegam of Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple. The learned Single Judge suo motu impleaded Dharumapuram Adheenam as the sixth respondent. The said writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:-

                     “4.The case of the petitioner is that he is a Heriditary Trustee and also the President of Thirunallar Saneeswarar Bhagwan Temple. The further case of the petitioner is that there was a proposal for conducting Kumbabishegam at Athipadugai Angalamman Temple. Hence, the Government of Puducherry formed a Tiruppani Committee. On 25.04.2025, Balalayam function was conducted.

                     5.The 4th respondent conducted an enquiry and after hearing all the interested persons, directed the 3rd respondent to pass necessary orders based on the report submitted by the 4th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that till date no action has been taken by the 3rd respondent and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

                     6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the report submitted by the 4th respondent dated 30.08.2024 and also taking note of the fact that the final decision is now pending before the 3rd respondent, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to deal with the representation made by the petitioner after affording opportunity to all the interested parties and take a decision, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

Pursuant to the said direction, enquiry was conducted. The petitioner herein submitted a detailed representation dated 22.10.2025 calling upon the Commissioner (HRI) to withdraw the earlier order dated 06.06.2022. The right of the petitioner – Adheenam was specifically asserted.

5. The Commissioner (HRI) after hearing the parties concerned, rejected the request for re-constitution of the committee or for recall of the earlier order dated 06.06.2022. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed by the Dharumapuram Adheenam.

6. The learned Senior counsel for petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to quash the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.

7. The Commissioner (HRI) has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The learned Government Pleader for Puducherry took me through its contents.

8. Though notice was issued to the seventh respondent, service is awaited. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the impugned order was passed by the third respondent and counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent, this Court can dispose of the matter even in the absence of the seventh respondent. He pointed out that the sixth respondent has given a public announcement on 11.12.2025 making it clear that he would dissociate himself from all pending matters. He had also written letters to all the concerned authorities. Copies of the said communications were passed on. It is seen therefrom that the seventh respondent has taken a decision not to precipitate matters. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in these circumstances, since no relief is sought against the seventh respondent, service of notiece on him may be dispensed with. It is equally relevant to note that the sixth respondent is also more a formal party. In fact, the sixth respondent was on the same page as that of the writ petitioner earlier.

9. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

10. The moot question is whether a Thirupani Committee can be constituted for Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple without consulting the Kattalai Thambiran of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam.

11. Thirunallar was a part of what can be called as French India. The French teritories comprised Pondichery, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam. Thirunallar is located near Karaikal. There is an ancient temple dedicated to Lord Dharbaranyeswarar. But the temple is more famous for the shrine of Lord Saturn situated within the said temple. The folklore, myths, legends and traditions of the temple are well known. The petitioner- Adheenam is the foremost Shavaite monastic institution founded in the 16th century. It is headed by a pontiff. Since the mutt runs a number of institutions, the pontiff puts his deputees in charge of those institutions. They are known as Kattalai Thambirans. The petitioner-Adheenam has been associated with the administration of the said temple for atleast 200 years. It should be more than that but available records clearly indicate that the Kattalai Thambiran of the Adheenam was managing the temple. Post independence, following the promulgation of The Puduchery Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972, the Government began to assert control over the temple administration. Hence, the Adheenam instituted O.S.No. 17 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondichery at Karaikal for declaring the Adheenam as the Hereditary Trustee with rights to administer Shri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam, Thirunallar subject to the arretes and the provisions of the Act 10 of 1972. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 02.02.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the Special Officer and the Executive Officer of the temple appointed by the Government filed A.S.Nos.426 and 429 of 1999. The Madras High Court disposed of the said first appeals on 03.08.2012 in the following terms:-

                     “1. that the suit in OS.No.17/95 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal be and hereby is dismissed without costs.

                     2. that administrative Board of the temple shall comprise Thambiran as president by right and other board members to be appointed by the Government.

                     3. that the members of the Committee shall take care of budgetary provisions and accounts, management of the property and realization and regular use of the revenue of the temple and that the absence of Boar, the Spl. Officer shall have consultation regarding these matters with kattalai Thambiran.

                     4. that as far as the internal administration of the temple is concerned, the Thambiran shall have control over it along with other members of the Board.

                     5. that all the members of the administrative Board be and hereby are responsible for the celebration of periodical religious ceremonies, with the recruitment and with the discipline of the personnel serving in the temple; and that in the absence of Board, the Spl. Officer shall have consultation regarding these matters with Kattalai Thambiran,

                     6. that the practice of keeping one set of keys for shrines, safes of valuables and Hundials by Kattalai Thambiran shall continue;

                     7. that the administrative Board shall look after budgetary provisions, accounts, manage the properties, realization and regular use of revenue of the temple and that. In the absence of Board, Special Officer shall have consultation regarding these matters with Kattalai Thambiran.

                     8.that the members of the Board be and are responsible for celebration of periodical religious ceremonies. In the absence of Board, the Special Officer Shall conduct them with consultation of Kattalai Thambiran.”

Aggrieved by the same, the Adheenam has filed a review petition and the same is still pending.

12. The contention of the petitioner-Adheenam is that since Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple is a sub- temple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam, the Thiruppani Committee could not have been constituted without consulting the Kattalai Thambiran.

13. The stand of the Commissioner is that the aforesaid decree applies only to Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam and not to Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple. According to him, whether Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple is a sub-temple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14. The expression “sub” has been defined in Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary as “a smaller part of something”. We are familiar with the expressions such as “sub-clause”, “sub-contract”, “sub-section”, “sub-committee” and “sub-group”. If something is a part of a larger entity, the adjective “sub” can be employed to describe the lesser or smaller entity. If a shrine or a temple is attached to a main temple, it is called as “sub-shrine” or “sub-temple”. I have arrived at this conclusion after a perusal of the precedents wherein this expression has been employed (AIR 1961 SC 1720, (2002) 8 SCC 460 etc., ). One can safely infer that a sub-temple belongs to the main temple. In other words, the trustee administering the main temple by virtue of the said fact is entitled to administer the sub-temple also. There is no question of separately administering the sub-temple which after all is a part of the main temple.

15. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that whether Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple is a subtemple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam, Thirunallar is a disputed question of fact. It is well settled that even in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India disputed questions of fact can be gone into. Mere existence of a disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of the writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. Merely because it is submitted that there is a serious disputed question of fact, that by itself will not become a question of fact. The court must have regard to the materials on record. If they would falsify the stand of the government, court should not overlook or ignore such materials on the principle that the issue would pertain to a disputed question of fact. If fact, the writ court has a duty to investigate disputed fact and record its finding (A.P.Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar (2025 Live Law SC 260). I would go one step further. There is a phrase called “moonshine defence”. A pleading may be taken without any factual basis. A dispute may be raised for the sake of it. When the petitioner points out that there is actually no disputed question of fact as claimed by the other side, the writ court has a duty to investigate the claim putforth by the State.

16. The District Collector, Karaikal in his order dated 30.08.2024 has given a specific finding that Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple has been mentioned as a sub-temple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam in the order dated 06.10.2004 passed by the Commissioner (HRI). I had a look at the said memorandum issued by the then Commissione”, HRI in the year 2004. The subjects column reads as follows :





The opening paragraph of the said memorandum also reads that Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple is a subtemple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam, Thirunallar. I fail to understand as to how the present Commissioner can take a contrary stand or raise doubts on the status of Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple as the sub-temple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam, Thirunallar. Officials do not have any personal stake in any litigation pertaining to the Department or Government. They have to assist the court by placing the facts on record. The conduct of the present Commissioner cannot be condoned. Because he is cognizant of the fact that the District Collector, Karaikal in his order dated 30.08.2024 makes a specific reference to the aforesaid proceeding dated 06.10.2004. The Commissioner (HRI) in the impugned order has no where disputed or dislodged this finding of the District Collector, Karaikal that Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple is a sub-temple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam Temple. That apart, in the typed set of papers, the petitioner has enclosed copy of the communication dated 06.12.2018 issued by the Executive Officer. The said communication also expressly notes that Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple belongs to Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam, Thirunallar. The tamil word



enclosed in the typed set of papers also re-enforce this fact. In the communication dated 31.03.2005 sent by the Executive Officer (Temples), Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam, Thirunallar addressed to Kattalai Thambiran mentioned that Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple belongs to Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam. The invitations issued in connection with various religious events also make it clear that Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple belongs to Sri Dharbaraneshwarar



Devasthanam had issued office order dated 27.09.2020 allocating various duties and responsibilities for the staff. It is seen therefrom that Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple has been treated as a sub-temple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam. The said office order makes it clear that it is in terms of the decree dated 03.08.2012 made in A.S.Nos.426 and 429 of 1999. It is also stated that a common attendance register is maintained and the staff of the Amman temple sign therein. The salaries of the Amman temple staff are paid only from out of the funds of the main temple.

17. The Commissioner (HRI) could not have taken a position contrary to the earlier stand taken by the department. Be that as it may, without even entering into a discussion on this aspect, it was not open to the Commissioner to claim in the counter affidavit for the first time that this is a disputed question of fact. In my view, this is not a disputed question of fact. I hold that Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple is a sub-temple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam, Thirunallar.

18. Once this finding is arrived at, it follows that the administration and management of the sub-temple cannot be divorced from the administration and management of the main temple. Both come under a single umbrella. That means the issue raised in this writ petition will be tested on the touchstone of the decree dated 03.08.2012 in AS Nos.426 and 429 of 1999.

19. It is conceded that the Thiruppani Committee for Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple was constituted without consulting the Kattalai Thambiran. It is obvious that the decreetal direction mentioned above has been breached.

20. Performing kumbabishegam (consecration) is essentially a religious act. It involves fixing the auspicious date and time and performance of a number of rituals. Lay persons cannot decide these aspects. Certainly not the departmental officials. This domain is beyond the reach of the department. Therefore, in the very nature of things, the religious personages normally associated with the religious institutions will have to take the final call in such matters. The association of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam with the Dharumapuram Adheenam is at least two centuries old. The Commissioner, HRI has fairly admitted this fact in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the counter affidavit in the following terms :

                     “16....The 24 June 1854 Arrete order placed the properties and revenues of the Tirounoular temple and the Karaikal temple in the State domain and made them subject to State administration, while still allowing the Tambiram a supervisory role over worship and related functions. The 11 May 1929 Arrete order created a Government-regulated administrative committee with the Tambirane as president of right, and the 22 August 1932 Arrete order expressly stated that the Tambirane's internal administration was exercised jointly with the other committee members.

                     “17. I respectfully submit that the 3 February 1939 Arrete order dissolved the earlier religious commission and created a provisional administrative commission headed by the Regional Administrator or his delegate, with the Tambiran representing the Dharmapuram monastery as only one member among other Government officers, which clearly demonstrates a Statesupervised administrative structure rather than exclusive private control or right to administer as president. The 7 July 1939 order again modified the commission but continued to treat the Tambiran as one of the members among Government-linked officials. These historical instruments support the position that the temple administration was under continuous public regulatory control and not under the exclusive administration of any private individual, Mutt, Adheenam or Tambiran.”

In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit also, even while contesting the right of the Thambiran, the Commissioner concedes that he can act as a consultant.

21.Section 30 of the Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972, reads as follows:-

                     “30.Savings - Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or the rules made thereunder, nothing in this Act shall –

                     (a) affect any honour, emolument or perquisite to which any person is entitled by custom in any religious institution or its established usage in regard to any other matter; or

                     (b) authorise any interference with the religious or spiritual functions in any institution.”

The above provision corresponds to Section 105 of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959. The effect is that the existing usages are preserved intact. There is no change in the rituals and ceremonies followed in the temples (vide Seshammal v. State of T.N., (1972) 2 SCC 11). In Sri Emberumanar Jeer Swamigal v. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments (AIR 1936 Mad 973), it was held that in view of the saving clause, the existing rights are not taken away. Any provision that preserves an existing right must be applied in letter and spirit. Any saving clause deserves such a construction. The association of the Dharmapuram Adheenam with the petition mentioned temple is a matter of historical record. I studied in Karaikal and Pondicherry and I know that a Thambiran managing the Thirunallar temple in early 19th century prevailed upon a widow not to commit “Sati” when her husband, a priest of Ayyanar Temple passed away. In these circumstances, one can safely conclude that in all religious and theological matters, the opinion or view of the Kattalai Thambiran must be taken as final. Of course, there could be some rare occasions when it is not possible to follow the advice of the Kattalai Thambiran. It is not necessary to envisage or catalogue such circumstances at this stage.

22. One other fact deserves to be noted. The Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972 was enacted to provide for the administration of Hindu religious institutions in the Union territory of Puducherry and for matters connected therewith. Section 4 of the Act states that every institution shall be administered by a Board of trustees. Section 9(1) of the Act empowers the government to appoint an Executive Officer for an institution or group of religious institutions. Both these provisions were struck down by the Madras High Court vide order dated 10.12.1986 in W.P.Nos.8797 and 11736 to 17738 of 1986 (Devi Bhavani & another Vs. Union of India & Others). The Hon'ble Division Bench confirmed the said order in W.A.Nos.1344 to 1347 of 1986 dated 03.04.2001. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5543 to 5550 of 2001. When Civil Appeals were taken up for final disposal, it was noted that similar issue was the subject matter of W.P.(Civil) No.476 of 2012. Hence, the Civil Appeals filed against W.A.Nos.1344 to 1347 of 1986 were disposed of in the following terms:-

                     "As far as the decision of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench relating to the vires of Sections 4(1) and 9(1) of the Act, it was brought to our notice that the said issue is pending consideration before another Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.476/ 2012. In such circumstances, we only state that leaving the said question open for consideration to be decided by the appropriate Bench, we are not expressing any opinion on that issue. As far as the writ petitioners' right, entitlement or any other issue as regards Sri Kamblisamy Madam is concerned, it is open to respondents 1 and 2 to work out their remedy before the appropriate civil court in the manner known to law, if so advised. In the event of respondents 1 and 2 working out their remedy before the appropriate civil court, it is always open to them to fall back upon Section 14 of Limitation Act to seek for appropriate orders and it is also open to the appellant to resist such suit on all issues including on the issue relating to the question of limitation by raising appropriate plea in that respect. Leaving all issues left open to be decided by the appropriate civil court in the event of respondents 1 and 2 choose to work out their remedy in the manner known to law, these civil appeals stand disposed of."

The effect of the aforesaid developments was set out by a learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 30.06.2026 in WP No.34726 of 2022 etc., It was held that the aforesaid provisions namely, Section 4(1) and Section 9(1) of the 1972 Act are non-est and there is no source for the official respondents to exercise their powers through a non-existent provision. However, it was observed that the other provisions of the statute continued to be in force. Probably that was why, invoking the power under Section 3(A) of the Act, the government issued G.O.Ms.No. 1/CHRI/T.2/2023, dated 14.07.2023 empowering the Commissioner to appoint appropriate committees. It is stated in the counter affidavit that it was challenged in W.P.No.125 of 2024 and that the Hon'ble First Bench declined to grant interim order.

23. I am presently concerned about the constitution of the Thirupani Committee made on 06.08.2022. The said committee cannot be validated by citing the subsequently issued G.O.Ms.No.1/CHRI/T. 2/2023, dated 14.07.2023.

24. Section 3A of the Act reads as follows:-

                     “3A.Powers and functions of Commissioner. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the administration of all institutions shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any orders which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions are properly administered and that their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded.”

It only states that the Commissioner (HRI) will have general superintendence and control over all the religious institutions. By invoking this provision, the Commissioner (HRI) cannot exercise control or power over religious matters.

25. The decree passed by this Court in AS Nos.426 and 429 of 1999 has already been extracted. It talks about the Special Officer consulting the Kattalai Thambiran in the absence of Board of trustees. At present, there is no Board. It is only the Special Officer, if at all, who can constitute the Thiruppani Committee after duly consulting the Kattalai Thambiran. The Commissioner (HRI) does not figure in the scheme of things anywhere. In the intersecting zone where the administration of the temple overlaps religious and spiritual matters, the Kattalai Thambiran will have the final say and the term “consultation” will be construed as “concurrence”.

26. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. Balalayam was performed way back on 25.04.2025. The deity should not be kept in Balalayam for long. Conducting the Balalayam without involving the Adheenam was itself illegal and contrary to settled usage. A fresh Thiruppani Committee shall be constituted by the Special Officer in consultation with the Kattalai Thambiran of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam. One of the members will belong to Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe. The Kumbabhishigam itself shall be performed as expeditiously as possible.

27. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.