(Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.4245/2025/A1, dated 30.06.2025 of first respondent and quash the same.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned notice Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.4246/2025/A1, dated 30.06.2025 of first respondent and quash the same.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to constitute the Trust Board by appointing non-hereditary Trustees to the Temple, namely, Arulmigu Angala Parameswari Amman Thirukovil, situated at Urapuli Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, within a time frame fixed by this Court, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 18.10.2025.)

Common Order

1. All the three writ petitions are connected and are therefore taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.(MD)No.18857 of 2025 has been filed by one Naganatha Durai challenging the impugned order dated 30.06.2025, by which a Fit Person was appointed to manage the affairs of Arulmighu Angala Parameshwari Amman Thirukovil, Urapuli Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

3. W.P.(MD)No.18558 of 2025 has also been filed by the said Naganatha Durai challenging the impugned notice dated 30.06.2025, whereby applications were invited for appointment as non-hereditary trustees in respect of the aforesaid temple.

4. W.P.(MD)No.33977 of 2025 has been filed by one Manickam seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to constitute the Trust Board by appointing non-hereditary trustees in respect of the very same temple.

5. The case of the petitioner, Naganatha Durai, is that he, along with others, had originally filed O.A.No.23 of 2003 for framing a scheme in respect of the said temple. Initially, the application was rejected. On appeal, the Commissioner remanded the matter for de novo consideration and the matter is still pending. During the pendency of the same, when the authorities issued a notification dated 05.10.2020 for appointment of non-hereditary trustees, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14431 of 2020. By order dated 15.10.2020, this Court directed disposal of O.A.No.23 of 2003 within a period of twelve weeks and, in the meantime, directed that the notification dated 05.10.2020 be kept in abeyance.

6. According to the petitioner, the spirit of the said order is that the original application should first be disposed of and only thereafter any appointment should be made. Placing reliance on Section 63(4) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the H.R. & C.E. Act”), it is contended that while framing a scheme, due importance has to be given to denominational or customary rights. It is therefore submitted that the respondents ought not to have proceeded with the appointment of a Fit Person or initiated steps for appointment of non-hereditary trustees.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed O.A.No.4 of 2025 seeking a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee, and the same is also pending. Without disposing of the said application, the impugned order appointing a Fit Person has been passed and the impugned notice inviting applications for appointment of non-hereditary trustees has been issued. Hence, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)Nos.18557 and 18558 of 2025.

8. The case of the writ petitioner Manickam is that the temple has been administered by non-hereditary trustees over a long period of time. When the tenure of the non-hereditary trustees appointed in the year 2023 came to an end, and no expeditious steps were taken for fresh appointments despite reminders, he filed the writ petition seeking a direction to constitute the Trust Board.

9. The learned counsel for Naganatha Durai would contend that the appointment of the Fit Person is illegal, as no reasons have been assigned. Unless there are specific allegations regarding mismanagement, such appointment is unwarranted. It is also contended that when both O.A.No.23 of 2003 and O.A.No. 4 of 2025 are pending, the respondents cannot proceed with the appointment of non-hereditary trustees. It is further submitted that Section 53(4) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, which is referred to by the respondents, is not applicable.

10. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the H.R. & C.E. authorities would submit that though Section 53(4) of the H.R. & C.E. Act may have been wrongly quoted, mere quoting of a wrong provision would not vitiate the proceedings. It is submitted that the temple has all along been administered by non-hereditary trustees and periodic appointments were made, including in the year 2023, when the petitioner’s wife was appointed as one of the non-hereditary trustees. Upon expiry of their tenure, steps have been initiated for fresh appointments and, in the interregnum, a Fit Person has been appointed to manage the affairs of the temple.

11. The learned counsel for the impleaded private respondents would submit that in O.A.No.23 of 2003, the petitioner had sought framing of a scheme to broaden the administration of the temple by including more persons. The application was earlier dismissed on the ground that the Narpani Mandram was not a legal entity competent to nominate trustees. The appellate authority remanded the matter for fresh consideration after permitting appropriate amendments. Even thereafter, non-hereditary trustees continued to be appointed periodically. The temple has consistently been treated as a public temple administered by non-hereditary trustees. It is contended that only after the tenure of his wife as trustee ended in 2025, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4 of 2025 seeking declaration as hereditary trustee, which is contradictory to his earlier stand.

12. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

13. It is seen that in O.A.No.23 of 2003, the petitioner sought a scheme for inclusive administration of the temple and even stated that increasing the number of trustees would lead to better administration. It is also evident that nonhereditary trustees have been appointed periodically. By order dated 13.06.2023, the petitioner’s wife, Nalayini Devi, was appointed as one of the non-hereditary trustees and her tenure has since expired. The order dated 15.10.2020 in W.P. (MD)No.14431 of 2020 merely directed disposal of O.A.No.23 of 2003 within twelve weeks and kept the notification dated 05.10.2020 in abeyance. Subsequently, fresh appointments were made in 2023, including that of the petitioner’s wife. In such circumstances, the earlier observation cannot now be pressed into service. The petitioner has also filed O.A.No.4 of 2025 only recently, seeking declaration as hereditary trustee. His claim shall be considered in accordance with law.

14. In view of the above, the prayers sought in W.P.(MD)Nos.18857 and 18558 of 2025 to quash the impugned proceedings cannot be granted. As steps have already been initiated for appointment of non-hereditary trustees, no separate direction is required in W.P.(MD)No.33977 of 2025.

15. However, considering that this Court had as early as in 2020 directed expeditious disposal of O.A.No.23 of 2003, it is appropriate that both O.A.No.23 of 2003 and O.A.No.4 of 2025 be taken up together and disposed of at the earliest.

16. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of on the following terms:

                     (i) The prayers sought by Naganatha Durai in W.P.(MD)Nos.18857 and 18558 of 2025 to quash the impugned order and notice are rejected.

                     (ii) It is recorded that steps have already been initiated for appointment of non-hereditary trustees pursuant to the notice dated 30.06.2025, and W.P.(MD) No.33977 of 2025 is accordingly closed.

                     (iii) The first respondent/Joint Commissioner shall take up O.A.No.23 of 2003 and O.A.No.4 of 2025 together, afford opportunity of hearing to Naganatha Durai, the private respondents and all other interested persons, and pass final orders on merits as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of web copy of the order, without insisting upon production of a certified copy. In the meanwhile, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the appointment of non-hereditary trustees pursuant to the notice dated 30.06.2025, and the Fit Person shall continue to manage the affairs of the temple until the Trust Board assumes charge.

                     (iv) It is made clear that all contentions of the parties are left open to be decided in the original applications on their own merits.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.