(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to allow all the legal heirs of the late Venkataraman poosari to participate and conduct Pooja in the upcoming Vandiyur Mandagapadi Pooja which going to be held on 01.05.2026 Kuthirai Vahanam Pooja at about 1.00 am and on 02.05.2026 Shesha Vahanam Pooja at about 10.00 am with the help of police protection amicably.)

1. The Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to permit all the legal heirs of late Venkataraman Poosari to participate in and conduct pooja during the upcoming Vandiyur Mandagapadi Pooja, which is scheduled to be held on 01.05.2026 (Kuthirai Vahanam Pooja) and on 02.05.2026 (Shesha Vahanam Pooja).

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioners is that as per the scheme framed by the Civil Court, the Mandagapadi Pooja has to be conducted on a rotational basis by Venkataraman Poosari and his brother, Seenivasan Poosari.

3. After the death of Venkataraman Poosari, the third respondent, Periyannan Poosari, contending that only the eldest son alone is entitled, is arrogating to himself the exclusive right to conduct the Mandagapadi Pooja and to participate therein.

4. An application under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 has already been filed before the first respondent, Joint Commissioner and the same is pending. Even though, on an earlier occasion, this Court directed the expeditious disposal of the said application, the same is still kept pending. The matter is now at the stage of recording evidence on the side of the respondents.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent, Joint Commissioner, would submit that the enquiry is in progress, as both sides are letting in detailed evidence, and the same will be completed in accordance with law.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, Executive Officer, would submit that their interest is to ensure that the Mandagapadi Pooja is conducted without any disturbance whatsoever and that there should not be any law and order issues or other untoward situations. Merely because the second petitioner and the third respondent are brothers, there is a conflict. The first petitioner is the mother of both the second petitioner and the third respondent.

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

8. In view of the nature of the relief granted, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, without notice to the third and fourth respondents. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.

9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, Executive Officer, the Pooja and the festival should go on without any law and order problem or other issues. At the same time, it can be seen that when the application has been made by the petitioners under Section 63 of the Act before the first respondent and even though it was ordered to be considered and disposed of expeditiously, it is stated that the matter is still pending. Since it is in the evidence stage and since the respondents’ side has to adduce evidence and the same has to be considered in detail, I do not see any possibility of the first respondent completing the enquiry and passing final orders before 01.05.2026, i.e., the festival date, as far as this year is concerned.

10. Therefore, for this year, if any interim arrangement is to be made, it is for the petitioners to make an interim application before the first respondent. The first respondent shall issue notice to the petitioners as well as to the private respondents in this case, conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate interim orders, as far as this year is concerned, pending consideration of the final orders to be passed under Section 63 of the Act.

11. As and when the petitioners file an application within one week from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order, the first respondent shall pass an interim order, if any, on or before 20.04.2026. Needless to mention that once the main case under Section 63 of the Act is decided, the parties shall thereafter be governed by the said order.

12. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.