Muthuramalingam v. The Joint Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 11.09.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.11931 and 11933 of 2026 Muthuramalingam ... Petitioner(s) - Vs. - 1.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, No.40, Muthusamy Nagar, Tirupathur Road, Sivagangai District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Ramanathapuram.
3.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
5.The Tahsildar, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.
6.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station,
Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram Police Station.
7.Varadharajan ... Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in the impugned order passed in O.A.No.7/2019 dated 22.02.2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and the consequential order in Na.Ka.No. 12/Ni.Ni/Pe.Ka.Ni/2026, Dated 05.06.2026 on the file of the 6th respondent and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 6 permit the petitioner and his villagers to celebrate the festival as per long standing practice and custom prevailing thereupon and pass further or other order as this court may deem fit and proper under circumstances and thus render justice. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Ramesh For R1 to R3, R5 :Mr.R.Parthiban Government Standing Counsel For R4 & R6 :M/s.I.Murugesan For R7 :Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.02.2024 passed in OA.No.7 of 2019 and the order dated 05.06.2026 passed by the first respondent.
2.By the said order passed in original Application in O.A.No.7 of 2019, the application filed by the 7th respondent to conduct the festival
under section 63 of the Act, was allowed by the Joint Commissioner. As for as this year is concerned, apart from Puravi Eduthal ceremony, the 7th respondent is assuming as if he is in full administration of the temple and he is not permitting the petitioner to do anything. The petitioner wants to give annathanam and also arrange for Valli Thirumana Nadagam. The same is also refused by the Inspector of Police by the 2nd impugned order. Challenging both the orders, the present writ petition is filed. 3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order under Section 63(b) of the Act is passed behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner also ought to have made as a party. The 7th respondent has no such right whatsoever as granted by the Joint commissioner.
In any event, the 7th respondent cannot monopolize all the activities of the festival when the petitioner willingly wants to do annathanam and to arrange for drama. The respondents ought to have permitted the same. Tomorrow is the festival. An order shall be passed at least with reference to this year relating to Annadanam and conduct of Valli Thirumana drama. 4.Per contra, the learned Government Standing Counsel would submit that the order has been passed under Section 63-b of the Act, with reference to the said temple, the order is being strictly implemented by the authorities.
This year also an order dated 04.06.2026 is also passed. There were also earlier proceedings in respect of the very same temple. 5.Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 7th respondent would submit that the very same order has been put to challenge earlier in WP(MD)No.11861 of 2024 by yet another person and the contention was rejected and liberty was given to file an appeal against the order passed in O.A.No.7 of 2019. Now yet another person is coming up with similar prayer.
6.Considering the fact that the 7th respondent is in de-facto administration, he has earlier filed WP(md)No.14469 of 2025 and this Court has also given a direction to conduct the Temple festival. For the current year, the orders have also been passed by the Joint Commissioner on 04.06.2026 and the festival is being conducted as per the direction. Nobody including the petitioner will be prevented from participating in the temple festival. As far as Annadanam, Nadagam etc, the same cannot be individually done by the petitioner alone and whatever is part of the festival is being arranged by the 7th respondent and being supervised by the Assistant Commissioner.
7.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
8.The 1st order that is challenged made in O.A.No.7 of 2019 and is dated 22.02.2024. If the petitioner is aggrieved of that order, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The contention is that it is made behind the back of the petitioner cannot be countenanced as the petitioner is examined as DW.2 in the said original application and therefore seems to have been in the respondent group opposing the application and the very contention that the order was passed behind his back and as if he had no knowledge or all false and is rejected. 9.As far as the second order is concerned, as rightly decided by the Inspector of Police, the police can only go by the orders of this Court and the decision that is made by the HR&CE authorities.
petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.09.2026 NCC:Yes/No Ns To 1.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, No.40, Muthusamy Nagar, Tirupathur Road, Sivagangai District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Ramanathapuram.
3.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
4.The Tahsildar, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Ns and W.M.P(MD)No.11931 and 11933 of 2026 11.09.2026