Madras High CourtWP(MD)/30707/2024disposed of

R.Venkatasamy Naidu v. The Secretary To The Government Of Tamilnadu

2025-11-07Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan12 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.30707 of 2024 and W.P(MD)No.1135 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.25780 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.762 and 763 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.30707 of 2024:- R.Venkatasamy Naidu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, St.George Building, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

4.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

1/12

5.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Alanganallur, Madurai District.

6.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Muniyandi Swamy Vagaiyara Thirukkovil, Alanganallur, Madurai District.

7.Arulmigu Muniyandi Swamy Vagaiyara Thirukkovil, Alanganallur, Represented by its Present Thakkar, Alanganallur, Madurai District.

Now Functioning as Executive Officer, Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Thirukkovil, Nethaji Road, Madurai.

8.The District Level Appointment Committee, (Non Hereditary Trustees), Madurai Region, Madurai.

14 as Board of Trustees of Arulmighu Muniyandi Swamy Vagaiyerah Thirukkovil situated at Alanganallur, Madurai District as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskarn, Addl. Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.P.Subbaraj, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 to R8.

Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R9 to R14.

W.P.(MD)No.1135 of 2025:- R.Venkatasamy Naidu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, St.George Building, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

4.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

5.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Alanganallur, Madurai District.

3/12

6.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Muniyandi Swamy Vagaiyara Thirukkovil, Alanganallur, Madurai District.

7.Arulmigu Muniyandi Swamy Vagaiyara Thirukkovil, Alanganallur, Represented by its Trustees, Madurai District.

8.The District Level Appointment Committee, (Non Hereditary Trustees), Madurai Region, Madurai.

9.D.Ragupathy 10.Amulrani 11.Ganesh 12.V.Periyasamy 13.S.Chandran 14.S.Marisamy ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned government order in G.O.(Ms).No.316, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (A.Ni3-1) Department dated 04.12.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.12652/2022 Aa1 dated 20.12.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal. 4/12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskarn, Addl. Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.P.Subbaraj, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 to R5.

Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R9 to R14.

COMMON ORDER Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner is a resident of Alanganallur. He is a devotee of Arulmighu Muniyandi Swamy Vagaiyara Thirukovil, Alanganallur. Apprehending that the respondents 9 and 10 may be appointed as non-hereditary trustees of the trust board, the petitioner submitted a representation making certain allegations. Since it was not considered, he filed W.P.(MD)No.23119 of 2024 to forbear the authorities from appointing them as non-hereditary trustees for the temple. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 03.10.2024 in the following terms:- "3. In view of the same and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this Writ Petition, there shall be a direction to the official 5/12

respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested persons/stake holders, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law."

Pursuant to the said direction, enquiry was conducted and the petitioner's complaint was closed vide order dated 20.12.2024. In the meanwhile, G.O.(Ms)No.316, Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department dated 04.12.2024 was issued appointing as many as five persons including the tenth respondent herein as non-hereditary trustees. Challenging the aforesaid government order as well as the order dated 20.12.2024 closing his complaint, W.P.(MD)No.1135 of 2025 has been filed. 3.I must straightaway observe that the Secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department, Chennai ought to have been awaited outcome of the enquiry into the writ petitioner's allegations before appointing the tenth respondent and others 6/12

as non-hereditary trustees. This is particularly because the government was very much a party to the order dated 03.10.2024 made in W.P.(MD)No.23119 of 2024. Probably that was why, when W.P.(MD)No.30707 of 2024 was list for admission, a learned Judge of this Court made the following observations on 07.12.2024:- "2. By order dated 03.10.2024, this Court in W.P.(MD) No.23119 of 2024 instituted by the petitioner, where he had sought for a Mandamus not to appoint 2 private respondents in the writ petition as non hereditary trustees, taking into consideration the representation made by the respondents 1 to 5 had issued directions to the Official respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2024 and pass orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested persons within a period of four weeks.

3. A notice of hearing had been issued by the third respondent herein calling upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 05.12.2024 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. However, in the interregnum, based upon the recommendation of the second respondent dated 21.11.2024, the first respondent had issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No. 316, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 04.12.2024, appointing 5 persons as non hereditary 7/12

trustees including the person, who was objected to by the petitioner. Passing of the said order without hearing the petitioner pursuant to the Mandamus issued by this Court, in my view, is contemptuous. Hence, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to file an affidavit explaining their stand as to why the Mandamus had not been complied with by them." 4.I in fact thought of quashing the government order on the ground that the process directed by this Court had been short-circuited. But then, the learned counsel representing the private respondents submitted that this Court may refrain from making any further observation or remark and that this writ petition can be disposed of on certain concessions.

5.The writ petitioner is not an aspirant for the post of trustee. That apart, the authority concerned did not find that the allegations made by the writ petitioner have been substantiated. In view these two aspects, I am of the view that the government order need not be interfered with. Further, the writ petitioner raised three pertinent grievances (a) That there is political interference in the administration and management of the temple. (b) The brass horse kept by the writ petitioner's family for 8/12

generations is sought to be taken over by the trust board. (c) Special honours are being conferred on the trustees particularly, the tenth respondent and her spouse.

6.This order has been passed based on consensus between the writ petitioner and the private respondents. It is submitted by the respondents that it will be ensured that the administration of the temple will be run only by the trust board and that there will not be any political interference.

7.It is also conceded by the members of the trust that they would not pursue the resolution taken on 07.02.2025 for taking the brass horse kept by the writ petitioner. The brass horse shall be returned to the petitioner immediately. In stead, the trust board will file OA before the Joint Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai will decide as to who should keep the brass horse. Of course, the said OA to be filed by the trust board will be decided only in accordance with law and after the writ petitioner and his son are put on notice. There will not be any conferment 9/12

of first honour or special honour on any of the members of the trust board.

8.The ninth respondent had already filed O.S.No.16 of 2025 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Madurai seeking conferment of certain honours. The right of the ninth respondent would abide by the outcome of the said suit. The said suit shall be disposed of on its own merits and in accordance with law.

9.These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 07.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, St.George Building, Chennai.

10/12