Ayyakannu v. S.Marimuthu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.05.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA W.A(MD)No.805 of 2026 and CMP(MD)No.6629 of 2026 1.Ayyakannu 2.Arumugam ... Appellants Vs.

1.S.Marimuthu 2.The State Rep. by The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

3.The District Collector Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

4.The Tahsildar Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

5.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By, Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

6.The Assistant Commissioner The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai District.

7.Kumaresan 8.Andiappan

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent Appeal, against the order dated 07.05.2026 made in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2710 of 2026 passed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ramanathan for Mr.M.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.R.Sankar Ganesh - for R1 Mr.R.Ghandiraj - for R3, R4 & R6 Special Government Pleader Mr.T.Senthil Kumar - for R2 & R5 Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.) This writ appeal is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2026 made in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2710 of 2026.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that in essence, the custom prevalent in the temple is in question and therefore, the writ appeal is maintainable.

3. Considering the said submissions, we are also of the view that nothing criminal in nature about the instant proceedings and therefore, the writ appeal is maintainable.

4. The learned counsel would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is without giving an opportunity to the petitioners who are directly aggrieved by the direction to permit procession by a new separate deity. The deity that is there in the petitioners' temple is

only to be used. Even the petitioners are willing for a joint conduct of the festival.

5. The learned counsel taking notice on behalf of the first respondent would submit that it was never permitted and only because the petitioners and their village people are neither giving the deity nor allowing the petitioners to conduct the procession with the separate deity, the interim order has been passed.

6. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

7. At the outset, it can be seen that the interim direction has been granted while reserving the matters for orders. Therefore, the entire issue will be considered only in the final judgment that is to be passed by the learned Judge. It would be inappropriate to entertain this writ appeal arising out of this ad interim order that was passed at the time of reserving orders. Considering the festival as far as this year is concerned, suffice it to

observe that merely because the first respondent is permitted to conduct the procession with a separate deity that will not prejudice the parties one way or the other in the main writ petition.

8. The writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(D.B.C., J.) (R.P., J.) 20.05.2026 Index : Yes /No NCC : Yes /No rm

To 1.The State Rep. by The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2.The District Collector Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

3.The Tahsildar Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

4.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By, Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

5.The Assistant Commissioner The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai District

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

and R.POORNIMA, J.

rm Order made in W.A(MD)No.805 of 2026 and CMP(MD)No.6629 of 2026 20.05.2026