← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/1783/2026dismissed

Ravichandran v. The Commissioner

2026-01-27Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy10 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 27/01/2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and WMP(MD)Nos.1406 and 1407 of 2026 Ravichandran ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Office at Thiruvanaikaval, Trichy.

3. The District Committee, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Trichy District.

4. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Thiruvanaikaval, Trichy.

1/10

5. The Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Arulmigu Anjaneyaswamy Kovil - Kallukuli, Kallukuli, Trichy - 20.

6. T.Shivashanmugam

7. Chandrasekar

8. Tharani ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3105/2025/A5/ dated 26.09.2025 passed by the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to declare the temples namely, Arulmigu Pidari Ayyanar, Sri Koothayee Amman, Bhagavathi Amman, Pidariyar and Saptha Kannimar, K.Sathanoor, Trichy East Taluk, Trichy District, under hereditary administrative Trustee. For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Devasena For R1 to R5 : Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan, Government Advocate For R6 : Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Senthur For R7 & R8 : Mr.V.Kishok Kumar

ORDER

2/10

Challenging the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the 4th respondent appointing the respondents 6 to 8 as non hereditary trustees to Arulmigu Pidari Ayyanar Temple, K.Sathanoor, Trichy East Taluk, Trichy District, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said order with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to declare the temples namely, Arulmigu Pidari Ayyanar, Sri Koothayee Amman, Bhagavathi Amman, Pidariyar and Saptha Kannimar, K.Sathanoor, Trichy East Taluk, Trichy District, under hereditary administrative Trustee. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject temples were founded by the petitioner's ancestors and they were managing the affairs of the temple and thereafter the administration of the temple was handed over to the 5th respondent / Executive Officer on 30.08.2017. According to the learned counsel, subject temples are hereditary temples and the petitioner and his relatives filed O.A.No.10 of 2025 under Section 64(1) of the HR & CE Act, 1959 before the 2nd respondent to declare 3/10

them as hereditary trustees of the subject temples which is pending. While so, without notice to the petitioner, the 4th respondent passed the impugned order appointing the private respondents as non hereditary trustees to the subject temples. The petitioner obtained the impugned order under the Right to Information Act and filed this writ petition. Since the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be set aside.

3.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent would submit that applications for appointment of non hereditary trustees for Arulmigu Pidari Ayyanar Temple were called for as early as on 03.01.2025 and thereafter by impugned order dated 26.09.2025, respondents 6 to 8 were appointed as non hereditary trustees to the said temple and they have also taken charge and that Kumbabishekam for the said temple is scheduled 4/10

on 28.01.2026. They would further submit that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of non hereditary trustees since until the disposal of the O.A.No.10 of 2025 filed by the petitioner, the subject temple must be managed by non hereditary trustees. Further, when applications for appointment of non hereditary trustees were called for as early as on 03.01.2025, the petitioner did not make any objection and only after the appointment of non hereditary trustees by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has assailed the same contending that without notice to him, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner who is claiming himself to be managing and involving in the affairs of the subject temple, could have very well visited the website of HR & CE and ascertained the notice dated 03.01.

temple. They would further submit that if the petitioner's O.A.No. 10/2025 is ultimately allowed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner and his relatives are declared as hereditary trustees of the subject temple, the appointment of the respondents 6 to 8 as non hereditary trustees will come to an end. But till such time, the subject temple is required to be managed and administered by non hereditary trustees and the same has been rightly done by the authorities through the impugned order. Thus, they would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

4.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

5.

When the petitioner and his relatives themselves have filed O.A.No.10/2025 claiming hereditary trusteeship of the subject temple, the petitioner has to work his remedy in the pending O.A. Till the disposal of the said O.A., the subject temple 6/10

requires to be administered by non hereditary trustees and by virtue of the impugned order, the same has been rightly done. Thus, the impugned order cannot be found fault with. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is claiming non hereditary trusteeship or he wants to be appointed as non hereditary trustee and therefore, the contention that without notice to him, the impugned order has been passed is unsustainable. Even assuming that the petitioner wants to be appointed as non hereditary trustee, he ought to have made an application as per the notice dated 03.01.2025. Admittedly, no such application has been made by the petitioner and therefore, consideration of the petitioner as non hereditary trustee will not come into picture.

However, when the petitioner is claiming hereditary trusteeship, he cannot be appointed as non hereditary trustee which is quite contrary to his claim in the pending O.A. As rightly contended by the respondents, if the petitioner's O.A.No.

to 8 as non hereditary trustees will come to end. Therefore, by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved.

6.

For all the abovesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. There is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 27.01.2026 Index : Yes / No bala To

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Office at Thiruvanaikaval, Trichy.

3. The District Committee, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, 8/10

Trichy District.

9/10

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

bala

4. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Thiruvanaikaval, Trichy.

5. The Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, Arulmigu Anjaneyaswamy Kovil - Kallukuli, Kallukuli, Trichy - 20.

ORDER MADE IN DATED : 27.01.2026 10/10