Chithambara Kuttalam v. The Joint Commissioner

1 W.P.(MD)NO.34726 OF 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.34726 of 2025 Chithambara Kuttalam ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Joint Commissioner, Department of HR&CE, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

2. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vettali Amman Thirukovil, Ramavarmapuram, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue his duty as Poojari at Arulmigu Vettali Amman Thirukoil, Ramavarmapuram, Kanyakumari District.

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Nandhini Priyadharshini For R-1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader.

For R-2 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan * * * 1/4

2 W.P.(MD)NO.34726 OF 2025

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2. Arulmighu Vettali Amman Thirukovil, Ramavarmapuram is under the control of HR&CE Department. The Executive Officer has been appointed. He is now in-charge of the administration. The Executive Officer had orally directed the writ petitioner not to officiate as Poojari of the temple. One Shiva Sankar has been appointed as Poojari. In this background, this writ petition came to be filed.

3. The writ petitioner's counsel draws my attention to the information obtained in response to a query under the RTI Act that the fit person of the temple had herself answered that Chithambara Kuttalam, petitioner is the temple priest. The learned counsel for the second respondent states that the petitioner was only informally appointed and it was not a regular appointment.

4. If for several years, the petitioner was officiating as 2/4

3 W.P.(MD)NO.34726 OF 2025 Poojari of the temple, it is just and proper that the petitioner is allowed to discharge his functions. If according to the second respondent, the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct, she has to determine the same in the manner known to law. Without taking action as per due process of law, stopping the petitioner from discharging his duties is clearly illegal.

5. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to discharge his functions as Poojari of the second respondent temple. I grant liberty to the respondents herein to take action in the manner known to law. With the aforesaid liberty to the respondents, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. 28.11.2025 NCS : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU To:

The Joint Commissioner, Department of HR&CE, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

3/4

4 W.P.(MD)NO.34726 OF 2025 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

PMU W.P.(MD)No.34726 of 2025 28.11.2025 4/4