Jeyakumar Kcp v. The Joint Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P(MD)Nos.24009 & 24013 of 2025 K.C.P.Jeyakumar ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, B1 Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai - 625 016.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, B1 Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai - 625 016.
3.R.Murugayee 4.K.Sabitha 5.N.Marimuthu 1/6
6.The Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
(R.6 is suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court dated 24.11.2025) ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent in her proceedings Se.Mu.Na.Ka. No.5482/2025/E3 dated 19.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Dr.C.Gunaseelarupan For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader for R.1, R.2 & R.6 Mr.H.Arumugam for Mr.V.S.Kishok Kumar for R.3 to R.5
ORDER
The writ petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings dated 19.09.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Madurai appointing the respondents 3 to 5 as non-hereditary trustees of the petition mentioned temple for a period of 2 years. This is put to challenge by none other than the previous trustee. The writ petitioner 2/6
was appointed as sole trustee vide order dated 20.03.2023. His term has already come to an end.
2.The case of the writ petitioner is that original application has been filed before the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Madurai for framing scheme to manage the temple and that since the same is pending adjudication, the second respondent cannot pass the impugned order in the meanwhile. His further grievance is that he was not put on notice and that sufficient publication was also not made. 3.As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the newly appointed trustees, the writ petitioner himself was appointed by the second respondent in 2023 in the same manner as adopted in the present case. He cannot feign ignorance. He knew very well that his tenure had come to an end in March 2025 and that steps will be taken for constituting a new Board. When the writ petitioner's tenure had come to an end, he has to vacate his office and the question of putting him on notice does not arise at all. 3/6
4.I wanted to know from the respondents whether proper publication had been made.
5.The learned Special Government Pleader on instructions submits that notification inviting applications was issued on 24.06.2025 and that it was duly uploaded in the website maintained by the HR&CE Department. Further, the notification was pasted in the notice board of the temple as well as the office of the jurisdictional Village Administrative Officer. It is stated that three applications were received in response to the said notification and that all the three applicants were appointed as trustees.
6.I am satisfied that the procedure adopted in the case on hand does not call for any interference, particularly at the instance of the writ petitioner. At the same time, since such challenges are mounted repeatedly, it would be appropriate for the first respondent to follow certain best practices. The writ petitioner is obliged to hand over the key forthwith and without any delay.
4/6
7.This Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 24.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA To 1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, B1 Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai - 625 016.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, B1 Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai - 625 016.
3.The Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
5/6
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA 24.11.2025 6/6