Rajamanickam K v. The Executive Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.9559 of 2026 K.Rajamanickam ... Petitioner vs.
1.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Moongilanai Kamatchiamman Thirukovil, Devathanapatti, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.
2.Pounraj 3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul.
... Respondents (R - 3 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 27.04.2026 in W.P(MD)No.12676 of 2026) 1/6
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in nray; mYtyh; cj;juT ehs; 07.04.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to pass fresh order after hearing the petitioner and other poojaris within the period that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew For RR 1 & 3 : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 07.04.2026, by which the calendar of the Temple for the forthcoming year has been fixed.
2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it is the claim of the petitioner that he is an interested devotee of the temple, having customary rights in the matter of deciding the calendar of the temple. While so, the second 2/6
respondent alone, without consulting any other person, proposed the calendar, which was thereafter approved and published by the first respondent. The said exercise, according to the petitioner, was carried out without hearing the rightful persons and without taking a proper decision in this regard.
3.The learned counsel would further submit that, as a matter of fact, it is only the Joint Commissioner who ought to have decided the issue at all.
4.I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material records of the case. 5.The claim of the petitioner is based on the customary right of the petitioner with reference to the finalization of the calendar of the temple. In respect thereof, the petitioner can very well approach the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable 3/6
Endowments Act, 1959. The Joint Commissioner can then hear the petitioner, the second respondent or any other person interested, including the Executive Officer and pass orders afresh in the manner known to law. 6.In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the second respondent. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the averments that are made before the Court.
7.The Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms: i. Within one week from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order, without waiting for a certified copy of the order, the petitioner shall make an application under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1969 before the third respondent herein.
ii. The third respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner, the second 4/6
respondent and any other person interested in the matter and pass final orders thereon within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the said application.
iii. Needless to state, the parties will be governed by the order passed by the third respondent.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 27.04.2026 (1/2) NCC : Yes / No ps To 1.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Moongilanai Kamatchiamman Thirukovil, Devathanapatti, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.
2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul.
5/6
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.
ps 27.04.2026 (1/2) 6/6