K.Karuppaiah v. The District Collector,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P(MD)Nos.26903, 26904 & 26905 of 2025 K.Karuppaiah ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Pudukottai District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, 4.S.M.Subramanian ... 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 of the impugned communication in Na.Ka.No.5074/2025 A5 1/6

on the file of the second Respondent dated 09/09/2025 and quash the same and further direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner and Villagers of Meenikonendal village to carry out the works of electricity wiring, plumbing, CCTV, installation of Flag posts, provision for drinking water, painting and creation of arch, besides Yagasalai materials in the Sri Eruthandeswarar temple, Kummangudi Village at their own cost and expenditure by considering the representation given by the Petitioner dated 25.08.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.K.Sabur Khan For Respondents : Mr.G.Suriya Ananth Additional Government Pleader for R.1 & R.2 Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R.3

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the third respondent. Considering the nature of relief to be granted, issuance of notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with. 2/6

2.The writ petitioner wants to carry out some donor works for the petition mentioned temple. The petitioner made a request to the second respondent. The second respondent informed the petitioner that the petitioner will have to approach the jurisdictional revenue authority. Challenging the stand of the second respondent, this writ petition has been filed.

3.It is not in dispute that the petition mentioned temple does not come under the supervision of the Pudukottai devasthanam. It appears to be a public temple. Till date, the HR&CE Department has not asserted supervisory jurisdiction over the temple. Therefore, it has to be categorised as a non-listed temple. In the case of non-listed temples, it is the second respondent, namely, the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Pudukkottai District who is the competent authority. The petitioner is justified in approaching the second respondent. The second respondent ought to have put the interested persons on notice before passing final order. Instead of doing so, relegating the petitioner to go before the revenue authority is clearly incorrect. 3/6

4.In this view of the matter, the impugned communication is quashed. The second respondent shall issue notice to the fourth respondent and after hearing both the parties, take a call in the matter. I make it clear that the issuance of this direction will not in any way come in the way of Kumbabishegam being performed for the petition mentioned temple. Conducting Kumbabishegam is one thing; carrying out donor work is another. They need not be linked. 5.This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 26.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA To 1.The District Collector, 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Pudukottai District.

4/6

3.The Superintendent of Police, 5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

MGA 26.11.2025 6/6