Ayyanar v. The Superintendent Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Ayyanar ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottaipattinam, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Manamelkudi, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection and to ensure the peaceful and uninterrupted conduct of the temple festival and related religious activities by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.04.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor For R4 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate (civil side) 1/5
ORDER
Seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection for the conduct of temple festival of Arulmigu Chelliyamman @ Mariamman Temple situated at Sudalavayal Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.04.2026, this writ petition is filed.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the aforesaid temple. However, during the conduct of the temple festival in the previous year, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner in connection with a dispute that arose over the placement of loudspeakers. Pursuant thereto, his trusteeship was removed under Section 54 of the HR & CE Act. It was contended that such removal is not permissible in law, as the said provision can be invoked only upon the conviction of the trustee in a criminal case. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD). No.10868 of 2026, wherein this Court set aside the order of removal while granting liberty to the respondent authorities to initiate fresh action in accordance with law. As on date, the petitioner's trusteeship stands restored and he continues to function as the trustee. Apprehending similar action, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking adequate police 2/5
protection; however, the same has not been considered. Hence, the present petition.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. S. Ravi, submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless, and that issues arise only in the absence of consensus among the members of the temple. 4.Heard either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
5.Considering the submissions made, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.04.2026 and provide adequate police protection to the aforesaid temple, upon receipt of payment from the petitioner, in accordance with G.O. (Ms) No.139, Home (Pol-VIII) Department, dated 04.03.2019.
6.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 24.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Rmk Note: Issue order copy on 24.04.2026.
3/5
TO:- 1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottaipattinam, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Manamelkudi, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Rmk Order made in Dated 24.04.2026 5/5