S.Subramanian v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P. Crl. (MD) No. 1201 of 2025 and W.M.P. Crl (MD) No.322 of 2025

1. S.Subramanian

2. S.Durairaju

3. C.Rajendran

4. C.Malairaj

5. G.Sivajothi.

... Petitioners Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the District Collector,

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

3. The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram Taluk, 1/6

4. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station,

5. R.Muthuramalingam

6. R.Lakshmanan

7. Krishnan

8. Chelladurai

9. Sakthivelu

10. Boominathan

11. Nallaperumal

12. Balamurugan

13. Selvam

14. Karpagamoorthy

15. Moorthy

16. Sethuraman

17. Lakshmanan

18. Manickam

19. Ramachandran ... Respondents 2/6

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to prevent the illegal demolition of the structures of Arulmigu Mariamman and Arulmigu Adheenamilagi Ayyanar Temples and to ensure the petitioners to take part in the temple affairs by providing their contributions for renovation and maintenance of the temple and to provide adequate police protection for the temple, by considering the petitioners' representation dated 26.07.2025. For petitioner : Mr. V.Karthick Raja For respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor for R4 *****

ORDER

The petitioners, claiming to be the residents of Athangudi Village, Ramanathapuram District, have sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to prevent demolition of the temple stating that they ought to have been consulted before the demolition of the temple, as they are also devotees of the said temple and they would also like to contribute to the temple. 3/6

2. The petitioner's right to object to the demolition of the temple by respondents 5 to 19 has not been determined so far. The existence or otherwise of the said right cannot be adjudicated in this Writ Petition.

3. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any action of the respondents 5 to 19 and their legal rights are affected, it is open to them to seek appropriate remedy available in law. The respondents 1 to 4 cannot decide the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 5 to 19.

4. In such circumstances, this Court cannot issue a Writ as prayed for. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index : Yes / No 02.09.2025 Internet : Yes / No apd To

1. The District Collector,

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, 4/6

3. The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram Taluk,

4. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station,

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 5/6

SUNDER MOHAN , J.

apd W.P. Crl.(MD) No. 1201 of 2025 02.09.2025 6/6