Mazhilan V v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.(MD)No.14556 of 2025 V.Mazhilan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Thanjavur.

3.S.P.Subramaniyan ... Respondents [R3 is impleaded vide order dated 03.06.2026, made in W.M.P.(MD)No.23326 of 2025] Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned recommendation order of the second respondent in proceeding in Na.Ka.No.7622/2025/A3 dated 01.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Parthiban Counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu For R3 : Mr.M.Ramu

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 01.07.2025. By the said order, it was noted that Arulmigu Nadiamman Thirukovil, along with seven other temples, had been unified and was being administered by the Hereditary Trustee. Taking note of the same, and considering the request made on caste lines as well as the recommendation of the then Minister for Backward Classes Welfare, one of the temples, namely, Arulmigu Muneeswaran Thirukovil, was ordered to be separated for the purpose of administration.

2. The Hereditary Trustee has challenged the said order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the unification took place nearly 29 years ago. During all these years, no claim or objection was raised by any person. It is submitted that only after the Hereditary Trustee took steps to safeguard the temple properties by putting up a compound wall around the temple lands, certain persons, aggrieved by such action, raised objections and initiated the present dispute. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order has been passed

solely on the basis of the recommendation made by the Minister and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Department submitted that, in view of the rival claims and the prevailing ground situation, the first respondent may once again consider the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and pass appropriate orders.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that Arulmigu Nadiamman Temple is presently under the administration of the Hereditary Trustee. According to him, Arulmigu Muneeswaran Temple is the Village deity (Kula Deivam) of certain sections of the local population and, by reason of its inclusion under the administration of the Hereditary Trustee, their customary rights have been adversely affected. It is further submitted that they had been making representations for several years without receiving any positive response. It was only under such circumstances, they approached their elected representative, who forwarded their grievance to the authorities. Thereafter, the authorities independently considered the matter and passed the impugned order. Hence, it is contended that the order does not warrant interference.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The question as to whether temples should be unified or bifurcated must be decided solely with reference to the best interests of the temples, their administration, and the devotees. Such decisions cannot be based on caste considerations. Equally, a recommendation made by a Minister cannot, by itself, form the basis for such an administrative decision. A perusal of the impugned order shows that reference has been made to the recommendation of the Minister. In the circumstances, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Department, the matter requires fresh consideration by the Commissioner, uninfluenced by the earlier recommendation.

7. Accordingly, the Commissioner shall issue notice to the Hereditary Trustee, the third respondent, and any other person interested in the temples concerned. After conducting a detailed enquiry, hearing all stakeholders, and obtaining the views of the Department as to what would best serve the interests of the temples and their devotees, the Commissioner shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

8. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of on the following terms: (i) The impugned order dated 01.07.2025 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration. (ii) The first respondent shall issue notice to the Hereditary Trustee, the third respondent, and all other persons interested in the temples concerned. After conducting an enquiry, hearing all stakeholders, and taking into consideration what would be in the best interests of the administration of the temples and their devotees, the first respondent shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law. (iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order. (iv) No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

03.06.2026 NCC : No (2/2) smn2 To:- 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Thanjavur.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

smn2 03.06.2026 (2/2)