Arulmigu Meenatchi Sundareswarar Thirukoil, v. The District Collector, Sivagangai District

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 04/06/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI and WPMP CRL.(MD). Nos.720, 721 and 722 of 2026

1. Arulmigu Meenatchi Sundareswarar Thirukovil Rep. by its Trustee PL.Palaniappan

2. SP. Lakshmanan ... Petitioners Vs

1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2. The Tahsildar, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

3.The Regional Deputy Tahsildar, Sakkottai.

4.The Village Administrative officer, Karaikudi.

5.The Revenue Inspector, Sakkottai.

1/8

6. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, Sakkottai.

7. Rm. Narayanan, No. 52, Saminathan Street, Sekkalai, Karaikudi.

... Respondents PRAYER :- To issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent herein dated 23.05.2026 in the meeting dt. 23.05.2026 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr. C.T. Murugappan, For Respondent : Mr.K.Saravanan for R1 to R4 Government Advocate Mr.D.Rajaboopathy - for R5 Counsel for State of TN (Crl.side) Mr.M.Ponniah for R7 2/8

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to challenge the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 23.05.2026 in the meeting dated 23.05.2026.

2. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are the members of the Trust Board of the temple namely Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Thirukoil situated at Peraurani, Sivagangai District. The 7th respondent had been one of the Trust Board member. Earlier by the resolution of the Trust Board on 01.03.2026, the 7th respondent was removed from trusteeship. Pursuant to which the 7th respondent had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.34 of 2026 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Karaikudi seeking to declare the resolution as null and void and an order of interim stay was also passed by the learned District Munsif, Karaikudi. Thereafter, pursuant to the enquiry conducted therein, the order of interim stay was vacated by the Civil court. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have scheduled to conduct Trust Board meeting on 01.06.2026. At the instance of the 7th 3/8

respondent, a peace committee was conducted by the second respondent on 23.05.2026 in which both the petitioner party as well as the 7th respondent party were represented and the said impugned order was passed by the second respondent restraining the petitioners from conducting the Board meeting. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel categorically contended that the impugned order is bad at the eye of law for the sole reason that the petitioners herein were not given sufficient notice and they were put on notice prior to 30 minutes of conducting the peace committee meeting. Left with no other option, they had arranged an advocate just to attend the meeting without giving any details. Without hearing both the parties elaborately, the impugned order came to be passed restraining the petitioners from conducting Board meeting. Since already the matter is pending before the Civil court, the second respondent do not have jurisdiction to deal with the civil dispute. 4/8

Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent submitted that they have taken necessary steps to file a civil miscellaneous petition which was not numbered due to the mistake committed by the learned trial Court in the cause title. Thereafter, the 7th respondent has also filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court during vacation sitting, which was returned for indiscrepancies in the cause title. Now the 7th respondent has preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Application before the Subordinate Court at Devakottai. The same is yet to be numbered. Hence the vacation of interim injunction by the trial Court will not deprive the 7th respondent's of the right to seek the petitioners not to conduct the Board meeting. Heard either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

It is seen that already the matter has been freezed by the learned District Munsif, Karaikudi, in O.S.No.34 of 2026 and thereafter an elaborate enquiry the interim order of stay, which was granted earlier at the time of admission in the Civil Court, has also been vacated. 5/8

Under such circumstances, I do not find any impediment for the petitioners to conduct Board meeting. With such observation, this writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that no resolutions excommunicating the petitioner and his family from participating in the worship of the temple, will be passed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

04.06.2026 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no pnn 6/8

To

1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2. The Tahsildar, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 3.The Regional Deputy Tahsildar, Sakkottai.

4.The Village Administrative officer, Karaikudi. 5.The Revenue Inspector, Sakkottai.

6. The Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, Sakkottai.

7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

L. VICTORIA GOWRI,J pnn

ORDER

IN WP CRL.(MD) No.2928 of 2026 Date : 04/06/2026 8/8