← Library
Madras High CourtWP/48532/2025disposed of

P.Suresh Kumar, v. The Commissioner,

2026-01-06Honourable Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy9 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.48532 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.54188 of 2025 Mr.P.Suresh Kumar, S/o.Ponnusamy, No.37, Karupparayan Kovil Street, Maruthamalai Road, Coimabtore-641 041.

Petitioner Vs

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 031.

2.The Joint Commissioner Coimbatore Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, Commercial Tax Officer Complex, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimabtore-641 018.

3.The Executive Officer (EO), Arulmigu Karupparayan and Mariamman Temple, Linganur, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore-641 041.

4.K.C.Krishnaraj, M/63 years S/o.Chinnappan, Hereditary Trustee, Arulmigu Karupparayan and Mariamman Temple,

Linganur, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore-641 041.

5.P.Marudhachalam, M/67 years, S/o.Palaniswami Goudner, Hereditary Trustee, Arulmigu Karupparayan and Mariamman Temple, Linganur, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore-641 041.

6.L.N.Ganesan, M/56 years, S/o.Nanjappa Gounder, Hereditary Trustee, Arulmigu Karupparayan and Mariamman Temple, Linganur, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore-641 041.

7.R.Muthusamy, Hereditary Trustee, Arulmigu Karupparayan And Mariamman Temple, Linganur, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore-641 041.

8.K.Praveen Kumar, M/24 years, S/o.Karuppanna Gounder, No.412, Sunnambukaari Thottam, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District.

Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents enabling the petitioner to peacefully serve as a poosari in 3rd respondent Arulmigu Karupparayan and Mariamman Temple, Lingaur, Coimbatore without any disturbance from the 7th and 8th respondents or any persons under their advice or instruction.

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Abrukarasu For Respondents :Mr.K.Karthikeyan, GA (HR & CE) for R1 to R3 M/s K.Seetharam for R4 to R6 M/s L.Poovedra Perumal for R7 M/s C.P.Sivamohan for R8

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to enable the petitioner to peacefully serve as a poojari in the 3rd respondent Arulmigu Karupparayan and Mariamman Temple, Lingaur, Coimbatore.

2. I have heard Mr.R.Anbukarasu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate (HR and CE) for the respondents 1 to 3; Mr.K.Seetharam, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6; Mr.L.Poovedra Perumal, learned counsel for the 7th respondent; and Mr.C.P.Sivamohan, learned counsel for the 8th respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed, first, validly by the majority of the trustees. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continue as a poojari. There is no Rule that there is only one poojari to the temple. When the 8th respondent is appointed by the three Trustees, and when the petitioner is appointed by three trustees, of which one is also elected as Chairman, the petitioner should be given precedence, even the

date of appointment of the petitioner comes first. Therefore, even if the 8th respondent is permitted to function as a poojari, in the connected proceedings, the petitioner should also be permitted to function as a poojari.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 to 6 submits that the respondents 4 to 6 form majority of the trustees. The 4th respondent is also the Chairman of the Trust. The petitioner is only validly appointed. As a matter of fact, the appointment of the 8th respondent is not at all valid and the Board of Trustees are taking steps for cancellation of the said appointment. Even though, in the earlier round, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, directed the continuation of the 8th respondent as the Trustee, once as the petitioner has been validly appointed by the Chairman of the trust board, the petitioner should not be kept out of the temple and he should also be permitted to function as a poojari.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 7th respondent would submit that he forms the majority, being 3 members and they have validly appointed the 8th respondent. The 8th respondent has been functioning as a poojari and he has also been directed to be continued as such by this Honourable Court. Unless the appointment of the 8th respondent is set aside in the manner known to law, his poojariship cannot be interfered with. The temple can have only one poojari and the appointment of the second poojari would only

cause confusion.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the 8th respondent would submit that the 8th respondent is validly appointed and he is functioning as such as a poojari. When earlier some of the trustees did not permit the petitioner to function as a poojari, the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No.31037 of 2025 and by an order dated 18.08.2025, a direction was issued by this Court to permit the 8th respondent to function as a poojari of the temple and further directed that if any obstruction is made by the private respondent, necessary protection was also directed to be provided by the Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore District. Aggrieved thereby, the trustees filed Review Application No.

227 of 2025 and the same was also dismissed with liberty that the appointment of the 8th respondent can be challenged in the manner known to law and until such appointment is set aside, the 8th respondent will be permitted to continue to function. As a matter of fact, the petitioner herein challenged the order of the learned Single Judge by filing Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2920 of 2025 and the Division Bench also confirmed the order while giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of appointment made in favour of the 8th respondent herein.

7. The learned Government Advocate (HR and CE) appearing on behalf the authorities would submit that the procedure for appointing a permanent

poojari has to be done as per the Rules. In the meanwhile, this is only an temporary appointment made by the trustees to take care of the temple. In this case, the scheme is framed appointing six trustees from their respective clans and therefore, the dispute has arisen as three of them respectively, have formed into a separate group. In that way of the matter, as per the procedure, it is only the appointment of the 8th respondent, which is forwarded to them and approved by the authorities and as such the 8th respondent can only function as a poojari. as per the order of the Division Bench in the earlier round. Unless the appointment of the 8th responding is challenged in the manner known to law, the 8th respondent can only function, the temple cannot be with two poojaris and a second poojari is not needed.

8. The said submission made on behalf of the learned Government Advocate is refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 and he would submit that the process of recognising the poojari is not yet complete and as a matter of fact, when the disputes are at the nascent stage, litigations were filed before this Court and therefore, no order has been passed by the authorities, either recognising the 8th respondent or the petitioner herein.

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

10. The contesting trustees, namely, the respondents 4, 5 and 6 have also filed a review application as against the order in W.P.No.31037 of 2025 and it has been decided that it would be open for them to contest the appointment of the 8th respondent in the manner known to law. The petitioner has also filed a writ appeal as against the said order in W.P.No.31037 of 2025 and even the Division Bench has also decided that it will be open for the petitioner also to contest the appointment of the 8th respondent in the manner known to law. A reading of the order in the writ petition, review application and writ appeal, it would be clear that the 8th respondent was permitted to function as a poojari.

If there is no order permitting the functioning of a second poojari or simultaneous functioning, in that way of the matter, a conflicting order cannot be prayed for in the second round of writ petition. Liberty is granted in the earlier round itself to challenge the appointment of the 8th respondent in the manner known to law, either by approaching the appropriate statutory authorities or before the appropriate forum.

11. Therefore, keeping open the said liberty, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Needless to mention that if there is a stalemate between the trustees and if a representation is made to the authorities, and if the authorities have power, as per the statute, the same shall also be decided, at the earliest. If any such proceedings challenging the appointment of the 8th respondent are made,

the appropriate forum shall also consider the same as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 06-01-2026 ari To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 031.

2.The Joint Commissioner Coimbatore Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, Commercial Tax Officer Complex, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimabtore-641 018.

3.The Executive Officer (EO), Arulmigu Karupparayan And Mariamman Temple, Linganur, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore-641 041.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

ari and W.M.P.No.54188 of 2025 06-01-2026