Pitchumani Iyyengar v. The Joint Commissioner

2026:MHC:1774 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.05.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.(MD)No.10711 of 2026 Pitchumani Iyyengar ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Thanjavur.

2.The Assistant Commissioner / Fit Person, Arulmigu Sanjeevirayar Thirukovil, Pidampatti, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the 2nd respondent from conducting the Brahmotsavam festival in the "Arulmigu Sanjeevirayar Thirukovil, Pidamapatti" from 25.05.2026 to 03.06.2026 as per the invitation circulated or on any subsequent days till "Samprokshanam" is performed after completing the Vimaman Tiruppani Work in the Temple.

1/6

For Petitioner :Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For R1 :Mr.D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader For R2 :Mr.N.Dilip Kumar *****

O R D E R

The Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus forbearing the second respondent from conducting the Brahmotsavam festival in "Arulmigu Sanjeevirayar Thirukovil, Pidamapatti" from 25.05.2026 to 03.06.2026. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the material records of the case would submit that the renovation with reference to the said temple is on and already, Balalayam has been established and the work is going on. When Balalayam is established and the renovation is going on, in between, the Brahmotsavam and other festivities should not be conducted. The same violates the Agamas. The Fit Person has suddenly printed the invitation and is going ahead with the Brahmotsavam. The same has to be stopped. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

2/6

3.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the Agamas are not violated and the work is being undertaken and it is going on and it will be completed. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the Fit Person would submit that the temple in question does not follow the Pancharatra Agama. The question was already examined and since the Balalayam is established not with reference to the Moolavar, but only with reference to the Vimanam, the festivities are not stalled. As a matter of fact, the Balalayam was established in the year 2024 and the festival was conducted in the last year also. Therefore, even as per the the usage in the particular temple, Brahmotsavam can be conducted. The learned Counsel would also rely upon the order of this Court in Venkatakrishnan S. vs State of Tamil Nadu (W.P.(MD)No.No.27409 of 2025), whereby, this Court after examining the opinion given by experts, have ultimately held that there is no such prohibition in the Agamas that was placed before this Court and permitted Utsavam, even after the establishment of Balalayam.

3/6

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

6.When both sides take conflicting position with reference to the Agama position, it is for the first respondent to decide the issue under Section 63 of the HR & CE Act by involving appropriate experts and answer the question.

7.In view thereof, the representation of the petitioner, dated 09.05.2026 shall be treated as an application under Section 63 of the HR & CE Act. Due notice to the Fit Person or any other person interested shall be issued and the issue to be decided in accordance with law. 8.With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. NCC :Yes / No 20.05.2026 cmr 4/6

To 1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Thanjavur.

2.The Assistant Commissioner / Fit Person, Arulmigu Sanjeevirayar Thirukovil, Pidampatti, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

5/6

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

cmr 20.05.2026 6/6