Perumal. M v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 01.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY M.Perumal ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
4.The Tahsildar, Ilaiyankudi, Sivagangai District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Ilaiyankudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.
6.Ramaiya 7.R.Balachandran 8.K.Alagarsamy 9.K.Marimuthu 10.M.Baskaran
...Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to ensure the ordinary, decent and routine life of the petitioner and his family members by taking appropriate action against the excommunication activities of the respondents 6 to 10 on the basis of his representation 14.03.2024.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Balaji, for Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh For R1,R3,R5 :Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader For R2 & R5 :Mr.K.Gnanasekaran, (Crl.side)
ORDER
This writ petition is filed with the prayer of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to ensure ordinary, decent and routine life of the petitioner and his family members by taking appropriate action against the excommunication activities of the respondents 6 to 10 on the basis of his representation dated 14.03.2024.
2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted that the respondents 6 to 10 are conducting a Kangaroo Court and are excommunicating the petitioner from the village. The petitioner is not even permitted to enter the temple and participate in any of the temple festival, even water from the common tap are denied to the petitioner.
3.When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader as well as the learned Government Advocate(criminal side) upon instructions from the respective respondents would submit that there is no excommunication and the petitioner is very much permitted in the village. 4.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
5.Upon perusal of the affidavit, the primary grievance of the petitioner seems to be with reference to his claim that he must be permitted to be the Poosari of Arulmigu Selva Vinayagar Temple. If the petitioner claims any customary right to be the poosari of the said temple, the petitioner has to file an appropriate application before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE under Section 63 of the Act and as and when any right is declared under the said Act, he can be the poosari of the Temple. However, the petitioner cannot be prevented from entering the temple. If any other person prevents the petitioner from entering the temple as a devotee, due protection in that regard may be granted by the Inspector of Police, Ilayankudi Police Station, the 5th respondent. Similarly, if any person prevents the petitioner from taking water from any pipe, the same shall also be looked into and due
protection should be given to the petitioner for taking water. 6.In view of the submissions made by the Official Respondents, the petitioner is very well free to reside in his own house within the village and if he face any other ostracisation or excommunication, he can make a request in writing to the Inspector of Police who will take action in the manner known to law.
7.With the above observations and directions, this Writ Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of.
01.04.2026 NCC:Yes/No Ns To 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
4.The Tahsildar, Ilaiyankudi, Sivagangai District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Ilaiyankudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Ns 01.04.2026