V.Sankar v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 17.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.10673 of 2026 V.Sankar .

... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.

2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thoothukudi District.

3. The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sri Sankaranarayanaswamy Temple, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.

4. K.M.R.Palmani

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to take action on petitioner's representation dated 28.04.2025 and 15.05.2026 seeking to protect the temple property and administer the Arulmighu Kavalparayan Temple.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For R1 and R2 : M/s.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar Government Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.S.Manohar For R4 : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to take action on the petitioner's representation dated 28.04.2025 and 15.05.2026.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it is noted that the representation of the petitioner relates to the administration of the Arulmighu Kavalparayan Temple.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent, without any permission from the officials or authorities, is attempting to take an upper hand in relation to the temple, and that other persons are not being permitted to participate in the function. Therefore, it is

contended that the actions being taken by the 4th respondent, without any permission whatsoever, to renovate the temple as well as to conduct the Kumbabishegam, should not be permitted.

4. The learned Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submits that, after filing of the writ petition, the authorities also inspected the temple. Since the temple is not a listed temple, upon inspection it was found that no permission had been granted for conducting the Kumbabishegam. They have instructed that, without permission from the department, the Kumbabishegam should not be conducted.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent temple submits that, though it is not a listed temple, it would still come within the administration of the HR&CE Department and, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, due permission regarding the nature of the work has to be obtained, and even for the Kumbabishegam, permission from the appropriate authority is required.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent submits that it is not a listed temple and that the people residing in the neighboring vicinity have been administering the temple.

7. It is further submitted that the father of the 4th respondent originally obtained the planning permission to put up the structure which now exists. The temple is small in size and does not have any heritage structure. The Kumbabishegam was last conducted in the year 2009 by the 4th respondent and other devotees in the locality, and there was no objection at that point of time. Since 15 years have passed, the 4th respondent took steps to repaint the temple and its premises, and a date was fixed for conducting the Kumbabishegam. A representation was also made to the authorities stating that there is a necessity to conduct the Kumbabishegam. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent or any person acting through him will not prohibit anyone from participating in the Kumbabishegam on the basis of caste, community, or residence, and that it will be conducted for the general public at large.

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

9. Though it may be the case that there is no heritage structure involved or that it is not a listed temple having high income, even with reference to a small temple in a village, pursuant to the dictum of the Hon'ble Division Bench, if any person, including the 4th respondent, intends to undertake renovation and conduct the Kumbabishegam, the same has to be conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

10. Further, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no encroachment of any portion of the temple land is recorded. The temple and its premises shall be properly protected. In relation to renovation, since some painting works have already been carried out, the representation of the 4th respondent dated 15.05.2026 shall be taken up by the 3rd respondent for consideration. Thereafter, the 4th respondent may be guided to file an application in the prescribed format. The said application shall be processed, and due

permission shall be considered and granted accordingly. The result shall be intimated to the 4th respondent for conducting the Kumbabishegam. Thereafter, a date may be fixed and the Kumbabishegam shall be conducted in a common manner, open to all persons without reference to caste or creed, and the same shall be celebrated accordingly.

11. Pursuant to the application, if only any committee is required to be formed, the same may also be constituted. In any event, the request shall be processed and a final decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than two months from the date of receipt of the web copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

17.06.2026 rgm To

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.

2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thoothukudi District.

3. The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sri Sankaranarayanaswamy Temple, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

rgm and W.M.P(MD)No.10673 of 2026 17.06.2026