K.Singaravadivel v. The Joint Commissioner

O R D E R The writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the private respondents. This Court is not expressing any opinion as to the correctness or otherwise on the averments that are made by the petitioner.

¶2The writ petition is filed for a Mandamus directing the third respondent to comply with the order of the second respondent dated

29.08.2025 and consequently, directing the official respondents to ensure the administration, festivals and other events of Sree Pulikutti Ayyanar Temple and its allied temples, situated at Pattamudaiyan Village, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai district, should be conducted by the third respondent as a fit person and not by any other private parties.

¶3Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the persons-in-charge of the Temple, who at the time of the conducting of Kudamulukku had collected donations from the common public and third parties, have not properly accounted for the same.

¶4The second allegation that is made is that about 15 trees belonging to the temple were cut without obtaining the permission of the Authorities and were misappropriated. When the said allegations were brought to the notice of the Authorities, the order dated 29.08.2025 was passed whereby the temple Authorities were directed to conduct an enquiry and place on record the outcome. Further, it is submitted that since the same is not complied with, the present writ petition is filed.

¶5Additionally, a prayer with reference to the temple festival is also made, since there are allegations as against the persons who are administering the temple.

¶6The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Authorities would submit that the report that will be filed by the Executive Officer of the Temple will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed.

¶7The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Executive Officer, placing on record the written instructions, would submit that when the petitioner was called for the enquiry, he did not appear before the Executive Officer and place on record any documents in support of his claim. Inspite thereof, the six persons against whom the allegations were made, appeared during the enquiry and they submitted that they cut only one neem tree, which is only for the Yagasalai purposes of the temple and that also was duly accounted for by receipt No.6 dated

21.06.2024. Further, they have denied collecting any other donations.

¶8In reply thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that around 15 trees were cut and not only one tree.

¶9I have considered the rival submissions made and perused the material records of the case.

¶10Since it is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that 15 trees were cut and it is now contended by the private respondents that one tree alone was cut, the matter has to be enquired into by the second respondent.

¶11The second respondent shall take up the issue that was earlier considered by the second respondent by the communication dated

12.03.2026 for enquiry. Due notice shall be issued to the petitioner as well as the private respondents and any other person who is interested in the matter and the enquiry shall be conducted as to (i) how many trees were cut and how the same was utilized, (ii) whether any donation was collected from any third party and if so, what further action is proposed to be taken and orders in accordance with law be passed, and (iii) the allegation relating to the demolition of the temple structure is also made and the same shall also be gone into.

¶12Let the above exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than sixteen (16) weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order.

¶13With reference to the Temple Festival, since, so far, no proven allegations are found, the status quo need not be altered. But if the second respondent finds that there is a prima facie case against the persons who are in-charge of the temple, then appropriate direction shall be taken with reference to the conduct of the festivals also.

¶14Needless to mention that the petitioner as well as the private respondents shall cooperate with the second respondent for the conduct of the enquiry as expeditiously as possible.

¶15With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. NCC : Yes/No

12.03.2026 apd To

¶1The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, S.M.Road, Near Temple Tower Hotel, Thanjavur.

¶2The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶3The Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Veeramaha Kaliamman Thiru Kovil, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.

¶4The Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Nagudi, Pudukottai District. D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

.,J.

apd ORDER MADE IN

12.03.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :12.03.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY K.Singaravadivel ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, S.M.Road, Near Temple Tower Hotel, Thanjavur. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District. 3. The Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Veeramaha Kaliamman Thiru Kovil, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. 4. Lakshmi Then Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Avudaiyarkovil Circle, Pudukottai District. Now Working at Thuvarankurichi Circle. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Trichy District. 5. The Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Nagudi, Pudukottai District. 6. Mohan 7. Chinathambi 8. Muthu @ Muthukumar 9. Palanichamy ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to comply the order of the second respondent through his proceeding Na.Ka.No. 1730/2025/A1, dated 29.08.2025 and consequently, directing the Official Respondents to ensure that the administration, festivals and other events of the Sree. Pulikutti Ayyanar Temple and its allied temples situated at Pattamudaiyan Village, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai district should be conducted by the third respondent as a fit person and not by any other Private Parties without any authentication. For Petitioner : Mr. T. Vadivelan For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.G.Mathavan For R5 : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)