Ganesan v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment

ORDER The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent, whereby the licence granted to the petitioner for tonsuring the heads of devotees visiting the second respondent-Temple has been cancelled, taking note of the alleged incident involving an altercation between the petitioner and his colleague, Kannan Babu, and also on account of the previous incidents involving the petitioner presenting himself at the Tonsuring Hall in a drunken state.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no record of any altercation between the petitioner and the said Kannan Babu and that no F.I.R. has also been registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

¶3The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, draws the attention of this Court to the terms of the licence, as per which, it is clear that a licensee is expected to behave properly with the devotees and should not come to the Tonsuring Hall after consuming alcoholic or narcotic substances. Page3 of 5

¶4The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner, as a licensee, is entitled to an emolument of Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.30/- for every token issued for tonsuring by the petitioner.

¶5It is submitted that, since sharp blades are provided and the same were allegedly utilised by the petitioner to cause bodily injury, the atmosphere in the Tonsuring Hall gets vitiated, as the devotees are petrified. Therefore, it is submitted that, since the petitioner is only a licensee, the challenge to the impugned proceedings does not merit interference by this Court.

¶6Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, I am prima facie of the view that the licence is a privilege granted to the petitioner, which can be recalled at any point of time. Even if there are no other incidents indicating any violation of the terms of the licence, the licence can be withdrawn, as long as such withdrawal is not arbitrary.

¶7Be that as it may, the allegation against the petitioner appears to be that he had indulged in a scuffle and thereby injured a co-worker. In such circumstances, I direct the second respondent to treat the impugned order as an order of suspension and issue a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why Page4 of 5 his licence should not be terminated. The proceedings pursuant to such notice shall be completed within a period of 30 days from today.

¶8The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 14-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order smn2 To

¶1The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Chennai

¶2The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Palani, Dindigul District Page5 of 5

C.SARAVANAN, J. smn2 14-08-2026

Page1 of 5 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17446 and 17448 of 2026 Ganesan S/o.Thekchanam, No.266/A, Maruthuva Nagar, Sivagiripatti, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Chennai 2. The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Palani, Dindigul District ..Respondent(s) 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 pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent passed in his proceedings Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.5293/2023/C2 dated 05.07.2026 and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing the 2nd respondent to permit him to discharge his duty in the tonsuring place of Lord Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Ms.G.Subiksha Page2 of 5 For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Parthiban Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr.R.Murali Standing Counsel for R2