Sekar v. The Commissioner,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Sekar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Thoothukudi.

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Poovananathasamy Udanvurai Shembavalli Ambal, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

4.P.S.A Rajaguru ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent 1 and 2 to dismiss the fourth respondent from the Chief Trustee of the 1/4

Arulmigu Poovananathasamy Udanurai Shenbagavalli Ammbal at Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District, and further direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to and pass such further or other to conduct an enquiry on the petitioner representation dated 25.08.2025 as per the Section 25, 26 of the HR and CE Act, filed by petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Mahesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.G.Suriya Ananth Additional Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3 Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan for R.4

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner is a resident of Kovilpatti. He claims to be a social activist. The fourth respondent is a trustee of the petition mentioned temple. His tenure has come to an end. But a letter has to be sent seeking extension. The petitioner has now come forward with a representation that the fourth respondent suffers from a disqualification. Since his representation was not acted upon, the present writ petition has been filed.

2/4

3.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Even according to the writ petitioner, the cause of action dates back to the year 2012. It appears that some Police complaint was lodged against the fourth respondent. But the said complaint appears to have been closed as a 'mistake of fact'. Even though in matters concerning temples, the Court has to adopt a pro-active attitude, it appears that a stale complaint is being sought to be revived. There is no definite material to indict the fourth respondent. I am not inclined to issue direction as sought for.

4.This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 10.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA To 1.The Commissioner, Chennai.

3/4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

MGA 2.The Joint Commissioner, Thoothukudi.

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Poovananathasamy Udanvurai Shembavalli Ambal, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

10.09.2025 4/4