Poongothai v. The Pillaian Kattalai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.35751 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.28359 and 28360 of 2025 Poongothai ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Pillaian Kattalai, Tirunelveli Town, through its Executive Officer, No.35, Sudailaimadan Kovil Street, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

4.The Executive Officer, Pillaian Kattali, Tirunelveli Town.

No.35, Sudalaiamadan Kovil Street, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents 1/5

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in M.P.No.65/2024 dated 30.06.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the second respondent to de nova the enquiry afresh by considering the petitioner's produced documents and pass orders in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnan For R-2 and R-3 : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader For R-1 and R-4 : Mr.H.Arumugam

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in M.P.No.65 of 2024, dated 30.06.2025, and consequently to direct the second respondent to conduct the enquiry de novo by considering the documents produced by the petitioner and to pass orders in accordance with law.

2. Mr.K.Balasubramani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 4.

2/5

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the impugned order is dated 30.06.2025, the same was actually signed only on 30.07.2025 and was received by the petitioner on 30.08.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority refused to entertain the appeal.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the petitioner had not produced any proof in support of his objections. It is further submitted that no documentary evidence was filed to substantiate the claim regarding the filing of objections before the second respondent. Without properly availing the statutory appellate remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Since the issues involved are factual in nature, the same cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy, either by preferring an appeal before the competent appellate authority or by approaching the appropriate Civil Court. 3/5

5. This Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, as disputed questions of fact are involved, which require detailed examination of evidence.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, if she is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

15.12.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No TSG To 1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

4/5

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

TSG W.P.(MD)No.35751 of 2025 15.12.2025 5/5