E. Mahendren v. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Sub Collector,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P.Crl.(MD) No.1161 of 2025 E.Mahendren ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Sub Collector, Tenkasi Sub Division, Tenkasi.
2.The Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Alangulam, Tenkasi District.
...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition 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 pursuant to the Impugned order passed by the 1st respondent herein in her proceedings vide Na.Ka.A1/230/2025/ALG(13), dated 22.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the repsondents to grant permission to the petitioner to install Vinayagar Idol at Arulmigu Pechiamman Temple premises situated in Ayyanarkulam, Alangulam Taluk, Tenkasi District on 26.08.2025 for worship and to immerse the same in the river namely Rama Nadhi at Kadayam on 31.08.2025 as requested in the petitioner's representation, dated 31.07.2025.
1/5
For Petitioner : Mr.Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 22.08.2025 and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to install a Vinayagar Idol at Arulmigu Pechiamman Temple premises, situated at Ayyanarkulam, Alangulam Taluk, Tenkasi District, on 26.08.2025 for worship, and to immerse the same in the river Rama Nadhi at Kadayam on 31.08.2025, in terms of the petitioner's representation dated 31.07.2025.
2. It is seen that the Vinayagar Chaturthi Festival was celebrated on 27.08.2025 and, therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner has become infructuous.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that this Court may determine as to whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request is justified in law, so as to prevent the respondents from committing the 2/5
same error in future when similar requests are made.
4. This Court is of the considered view that even if the impugned communication is held to be unsustainable, such a finding would not bind the respondents from independently considering the petitioner's request in future on its own merits. It would also not deter the respondents from passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. Therefore, adjudicating upon the correctness of the impugned order, in the present circumstances, would only be a futile exercise.
5. It is needless to state that if, in future, the petitioner's request is rejected without following due procedure or in violation of any law, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge such an order in the manner known to law.
6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands closed. No costs. 03.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Indu 3/5
To 1.The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Sub Collector, Tenkasi Sub Division, Tenkasi.
2.The Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Alangulam, Tenkasi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Indu W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1161 of 2025 03.09.2025 5/5