W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.09.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

and

W.M.P.(MD) No.18765 of 2026

Tmt.D.Subbulakshmi,

W/o.Durai,

Member Board of Trustees,

Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple,

Madurai. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Secretary to Government,

Commercial Taxes, Registration and

Religious Endowments Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments Department,

Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

3.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer,

Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple,

Madurai.

_______________

Page No. 1 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

4.Mrs.Rukumani Palanivel Rajan,

W/o.Palanivel Rajan,

No.2 Palayam Illam,

Vallabai Road, Chokkikulam,

Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

5.Mr.P.K.M.Chellaiah,

S/o.P.K.Mookan Ambalam,

Door No.144, Anna Nagar,

Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

6.Mrs.S.Meena,

D/o.M.Sekar,

Door No.77, 4

th

Street, Harwinagar,

Arasadi, Melmadurai,

Madurai West Taluk,

Madurai District.

7.Mr.M.Seenivasan,

S/o.K.M.Munusamy,

Door No.122, 5

th

East Street,

K.K.Nagar, Madurai North Street,

Madurai District. ... Respondents

[R4 to R7 were suo motu impleaded by an order

dated 01.09.2026]

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their

subordinates, servants, agents or any person acting under or through them,

from in any manner interfering with, obstructing, preventing, restricting or

otherwise impeding the petitioner and the other duly appointed and

serving non-hereditary Trustees of Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar

Temple, Madurai, from discharging and performing their respective

_______________

Page No. 2 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

statutory duties and functions as members of the Board of Trustees during

the subsistence of their tenure, particularly in relation to the secular and

administrative affairs of the Temple and consequently directing the

respondents to extend all necessary cooperation and facilities to enable the

petitioner and the other serving Trustees to effectively discharge their

statutory duties and responsibilities in accordance with law.

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Ragavendran

For R1 : Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam,

Additional Advocate General - I

assisted by Mr.S.Venkatesh

Additional Government Pleader

For R2 : Mr.J.Bharathan

Additional Advocate General - V

assisted by Mr.R.Parthiban

Special Government Pleader

For R3 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan

Standing Counsel

For R4 & R6 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar

For R5 : Mr.S.Ramesh

R7 : Party-in-person

*****

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of

Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their subordinates, servants,

_______________

Page No. 3 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

agents or any person acting under or through them, from in any manner

interfering with, obstructing, preventing, restricting or otherwise impeding

the petitioner and the other duly appointed and serving non-hereditary

Trustees of Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai, from

discharging and performing their respective statutory duties and functions

as members of the Board of Trustees during the subsistence of their

tenure, particularly in relation to the secular and administrative affairs of

the Temple and consequently directing the respondents to extend all

necessary cooperation and facilities to enable the petitioner and the other

serving Trustees to effectively discharge their statutory duties and

responsibilities in accordance with law.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Ragavendran, would

submit that the respondents have printed the invitation for the ensuing

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam of Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar

Temple, Madurai, which commences with Vigneshwara Poojai on

06.09.2026. It is further submitted that the format of the invitation

approved by the Board of Trustees, which included the petitioner and four

other trustees appointed pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.269, Tourism, Culture

_______________

Page No. 4 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

and Religious Endowments Department, dated 06.11.2023 and

subsequently renewed vide G.O.Ms.No.483, Tourism, Culture and

Religious Endowments Department, dated 30.12.2025, has not been

followed.

3. It is submitted that the invitation that has now been printed and

circulated has deleted the names of the trustees appointed by the

Government pursuant to the aforesaid G.O. and therefore, interferes with

the exercise of the powers of the duly appointed trustees under Section 47

of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,

1959.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention to the

invitation for the Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam of the subject temple

held in the year 1995, wherein the names of the trustees appointed under

Section 47 of the Act were included. It is further submitted that during the

subsequent Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam held in the year 2009 also,

the names of the five trustees appointed at that time were also included in

the invitation printed for the said Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam.

_______________

Page No. 5 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

5. It is further submitted that even in respect of the sub-temple of

the subject temple, namely, Arulmigu Sugantha Kunthalambigai Sametha

Thiruvappudaiyar Temple, Sellur, Madurai, during the

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam held on 30.11.2025, the names of the

trustees, including that of the petitioner, were printed in the invitation for

the said Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam, as per the decision of the

Board of Trustees, along with the names of the Executive Officer and the

Joint Commissioner.

6. It is further submitted that the trustees had approved the format

of the invitation by including their names, in accordance with the

established practice of the temple in respect of the

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam. However, in the invitation now printed,

the names of the trustees have been omitted and replaced with the words

“Chairman of Board of Trustees and Trustees” (mwq;fhtyH

FOj;jiytH kw;Wk; mwq;fhtyHfs;).

7. It is further submitted that the decision to exclude the names of

the members of the Board of Trustees was taken by the officials as well as

the Executive Officer without any consultation with the Board of

Trustees.

_______________

Page No. 6 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

8. It is further submitted that there are, however, no documents to

substantiate how and when the decision was taken by the officials as well

as the Executive Officer, either independently or in unison, to exclude the

names of the members of the Board of Trustees from the invitation. It is

submitted that the past practice cannot be deviated unless there is a

specific resolution to that effect passed by the Board of Trustees.

9. It is further submitted that the officials as well as the Executive

Officer may have printed only a limited number of invitations and that the

remaining invitations can be printed by including the names of the

members of the Board of Trustees. It is submitted that in temples under

the control of the H.R. & C.E. Department, wherever important functions

such as the Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam are held, the names of the

members of the Board of Trustees of the respective temples are printed in

the invitations.

10. He would submit that, since January 2026, about 570

resolutions have been passed, out of which 312 resolutions pertain to the

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam scheduled to be held on 17.09.2026.

This indicates that the Board of Trustees has maintained cooperation with

the second and third respondents and, thereby, with the first respondent. It

_______________

Page No. 7 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

is further submitted that there is no justification for excluding the names

of the members of the Board of Trustees.

IMPLEADMENT OF THE OTHER TRUSTEES

11. Since the trustees act in unison under Rule 14 of the

Functioning of the Board of Trustees Rules and the order to be passed by

this Court may or may not adversely impact the rights of the co-trustees,

who were appointed along with the petitioner under Section 47 of the

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the

four other trustees were suo motu impleaded as the fourth to seventh

respondents by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2026.

12. After impleading the remaining members of the Board of

Trustees, they have entered appearance through their respective counsel,

except for one. As far as the fourth and sixth respondents are concerned,

Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned counsel, appears. As far as the fifth

respondent is concerned, Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel, appears. The

seventh respondent appears as a party-in-person.

_______________

Page No. 8 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

SUBMISSIONS OF THE SEVENTH RESPONENT

(PARTY-IN-PERSON)

13. The seventh respondent would submit that he has been

associated with the subject temple for almost 25 years and has been a

trustee for the last four years. He would further submit that during the

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam held in the year 2009, the names of the

then trustees were printed in the invitation and that this has been the

practice of the temple all along.

14. On a specific query as to whether he has any say insofar as the

non-inclusion of the names of the trustees in the invitation sent to the

dignitaries and invitees is concerned, he would submit that he has no

complaints whatsoever and would further submit that it is the desire of

God that their names have not been printed.

15. As far as the receipt of the invitation is concerned, he would

confirm that he has received a copy of the invitation and as such, has no

other grievance insofar as the non-inclusion of his name, as also the

names of the other members of the Board of Trustees who were appointed

along with him pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.269, Tourism, Culture and

Religious Endowments Department, dated 06.11.2023 and subsequently

_______________

Page No. 9 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

renewed vide G.O.Ms.No.483, Tourism, Culture and Religious

Endowments Department, dated 30.12.2025, is concerned.

16. The above statement of the seventh respondent, appearing as a

party-in-person, stands recorded.

17. However, apart from the above, he would submit that there are

several donors who have contributed to the

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam and would therefore request to include

their names in the stone carvings in the temple in order to honour them.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE FOURTH AND SIXTH

RESPONDENTS

18. Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned counsel for the two other trustees,

namely, the fourth and sixth respondents, would submit that the Board of

Trustees is a statutory body and that the printing of the invitation contrary

to the past practice is clearly vindictive on the part of the officials and the

Executive Officer. It is submitted that although there is no specific

procedure prescribed, a practice that has been followed during the past

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam ceremonies by printing the names of the

members of the Board of Trustees in the invitations ought to have been

_______________

Page No. 10 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

followed without any deviation. It is further submitted that the officials as

well as the Executive Officer are acting vindictively, as the present Board

of Trustees were appointed during the previous regime.

19. He would further submit that as per the customary practice, the

inscription stone for the Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam should also

depict the names of the members of the Board of Trustees, as was done in

the past and that there should be no deviation from the said practice.

20. The submissions of Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned counsel for the

fourth and sixth respondents, stand recorded.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT

21. Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, would

submit that he has no grievance regarding the non-inclusion of the names

of the members of the Board of Trustees. Like the seventh respondent, he

would also submit that it is the Will of the Almighty and that the non-

inclusion of their names is of no significance, as the Board of Trustees is

merely required to function for the religious institution.

SUBMISSION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT

22. Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Advocate

_______________

Page No. 11 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

General-I, assisted by Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Additional Government

Pleader, appearing for the first respondent, namely, the Secretary to the

Commercial Taxes, Registration and Religious Endowments Department,

who appears through Video Conferencing, would submit that about 570

resolutions have been passed by the Trustees, out of which 312 pertain to

the Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam scheduled to be held on 17.09.2026.

23. It is submitted that all the decisions have been implemented and

therefore, the case of the petitioner that the respondents are trying to

interfere with, obstruct, prevent, restrict or impede the petitioner and the

other non-hereditary trustees is wholly a figment of the petitioner's

imagination. He would further submit that there is no public duty cast

upon the respondents to print the names of the trustees in the invitation

and therefore, there is no question of issuing a writ of mandamus as

prayed for by the petitioner.

24. Apart from the above, he would submit that the first respondent

had no role insofar as the printing of the invitation is concerned. It is

therefore submitted that the rumours that are floating around that a

political game is being played out have to be arrested, particularly when

the names of the Members of Parliament and the Members of the

_______________

Page No. 12 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

Legislative Assembly belonging to the opposite party have also been

printed in the invitation. It is further submitted that the decision was taken

by the third respondent, as the Board of Trustees had neither given any

instruction nor passed any resolution insofar as the printing of the

invitation and that the exclusion of the names of the members of the

Board of Trustees was not intentional.

25. The learned Additional Advocate General would finally submit

that, even if the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is allowed, the

clock cannot be turned back so as to grant the actual relief sought for by

the petitioner, as the invitation has already been printed and circulated to

the dignitaries and invitees and therefore, the non-inclusion of the names

of the members of the Board of Trustees cannot now be rectified at this

stage.

26. That apart, it is submitted that there is no statutory right vested

in the Board of Trustees to have their names printed in the invitation for

the Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam scheduled to be held on 17.09.2026.

It is further submitted that there are only four more days before the rituals

connected with the Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam commence on

_______________

Page No. 13 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

06.09.2026 and therefore, on this count also, the present Writ Petition is

liable to be dismissed.

SUBMISSION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT

27. Mr.J.Bharathan, learned Additional Advocate General-V,

assisted by Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the second respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, would submit that the

affidavit is silent insofar as the alleged interference with, obstruction,

prevention, restriction or impediment is concerned so as to warrant

interference in the hands of this Court in respect of the

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam. That apart, he would submit that no

special privileges can be conferred upon the trustees appointed under

Section 47 of the Act.

28. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit

that no privilege can be conferred on the trustees appointed under Section

47 of the Act. It is further submitted that neither the petitioner nor any

other trustee can claim any right, privilege or recognition, as they are

merely required to discharge their functions for the purpose for which

_______________

Page No. 14 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

they were appointed under Section 47 of the Act. It is further submitted

that the petitioner as well as the other trustees can continue to discharge

their functions during their tenure of office as devotees of the deity in the

temple and that they cannot claim a right to have their names printed in

the invitation. It is further submitted that all the resolutions passed

hitherto would indicate that all the decisions taken by the trustees have

been implemented in unison without any demur.

29. Apart from the above, he would submit that there are more than

40,000 temples coming under the purview of the H.R. & C.E. Department

and that approximately 2,00,000 functions are held throughout the year,

some of which are minor and some of which are major, such as the

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam. It is further submitted that the second

respondent, namely, the Commissioner, is not involved in the approval of

invitations for any of the temples, much less in the approval of the

invitation printed for the Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam to be held at

the subject temple on 17.09.2026.

30. That apart, it is submitted that the second respondent,

Commissioner, is not involved in the day-to-day management of the

_______________

Page No. 15 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

subject temple, as the Board of Trustees has been appointed and it is for

the Board of Trustees and the Executive Officer appointed for the

aforesaid purpose, who are responsible for the printing of the invitation. It

is further submitted that the third respondent may have taken a call by

himself to print the invitation with exclusion of the names of the Board of

Trustees, as the Board of Trustees had not passed any resolution in this

regard and in the absence of any procedure for such printing.

31. It is submitted that if the petitioner and some of the Board of

Trustees, who have been impleaded now, want to establish the customary

rights based on the past practice, it is always open for them to approach

the civil court to establish their right. Thus, in a way, the learned

Additional Advocate General would submit that the manner in which the

events unfolded is a fait accompli.

SUBMISSION OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT

32. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing Counsel for the

third respondent, namely, the Joint Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer

of the subject temple, would submit that in the absence of any rule, neither

the petitioner nor any of the other trustees can claim as a matter of right

that their names should be printed in the invitation. Since there is no

_______________

Page No. 16 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

statutory right to have their names printed in the invitation, the petitioner

cannot maintain this Writ Petition.

33. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the

petitioner cannot maintain this Writ Petition. It is further submitted that

the prayer in this Writ Petition is for forbearing the respondents from

interfering with, obstructing, preventing, restricting or otherwise impeding

the petitioner and the other trustees of the subject temple from discharging

and performing their respective statutory duties and functions as members

of the Board of Trustees during the subsistence of their tenure,

particularly in relation to the secular and administrative affairs of the

Temple and consequently, directing the respondents to extend all

necessary cooperation and facilities to enable the petitioner and the other

serving trustees to effectively discharge their statutory duties and

responsibilities in accordance with law. However, the arguments

advanced during the course of hearing pertain only to the deletion of the

names of the trustees from the invitation for the

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam to be held on 17.09.2026.

34. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that in

paragraph 32 of the affidavit, the petitioner has concocted a story. It is

_______________

Page No. 17 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

submitted that the petitioner has projected as if the Board of Trustees had

approved the proforma for the invitation and that ignoring the same, a new

format has been printed by deleting the names of the trustees.

35. The learned Standing Counsel would also submit that 570

resolutions have been passed by the trustees since they assumed office,

out of which 312 pertain to the Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam and

none of the resolutions deal with the printing of the invitation. Therefore,

the question of invoking Rule 14 of the Functioning of the Board of

Trustees Rules, framed under Section 116(2) read with Sections 47, 48

and 49 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Act, 1959, does not arise.

36. On another query as to who took the decision to print the

invitation without the concurrence of the trustees, the learned Standing

Counsel for the third respondent submits that the third respondent, being

the Executive Officer of the temple and a responsible officer of the H.R.

& C.E. Department, prepared the format of the invitation, which was

approved by the second respondent. He would further submit that Section

23 of the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959, empowers the second respondent with

_______________

Page No. 18 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

general superintendence and control over all temples and religious

endowments to ensure their proper administration and the lawful

appropriation of their income.

37. The learned Standing Counsel would draw attention to the

contents of the invitation that has been printed. It is submitted that the

invitation states, “Chairman of Board of Trustees and Trustees of

Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai (mwq;fhtyH

FOj;jiytH kw;Wk; mwq;fhtyHfs;> mUs;kpF kPdhl;rp

Re;jNuRtuH jpUf;Nfhapy;> kJiu).” It is further submitted that no cause

of action has arisen for the relief sought for in this Writ Petition.

38. It is further submitted that if at all the Board of Trustees wants

their names to be included and recognised, it can be only under the

proceedings under Section 63(e) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959.

DISCUSSIONS

39. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as the newly impleaded respondents,

who are the other members of the Board of Trustees and the learned

Additional Advocate General-I for the first respondent and the learned

_______________

Page No. 19 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

Additional Advocate General-V for the second respondent and and the

learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.

40. The relief sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is as

follows:-

“For issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the

respondents, their subordinates, servants, agents or

any person acting under or through them, from in any

manner interfering with, obstructing, preventing,

restricting or otherwise impeding the petitioner and

the other duly appointed and serving non-hereditary

Trustees of Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar

Temple, Madurai, from discharging and performing

their respective statutory duties and functions as

members of the Board of Trustees during the

subsistence of their tenure, particularly in relation to

the secular and administrative affairs of the Temple

and consequently directing the respondents to extend

all necessary cooperation and facilities to enable the

petitioner and the other serving Trustees to effectively

discharge their statutory duties and responsibilities in

accordance with law.”

41. The facts that emerged from the elaborate submissions indicate

that since 14.01.2026, about 570 resolutions have been passed by the

Board of Trustees, out of which 312 specifically relate to the

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam to be held on 17.09.2026. It is the

admitted position that none of the resolutions passed for this year since

_______________

Page No. 20 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

14.01.2026 pertain to the printing of the invitation for the

Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam, which is normally held once in 12

years.

42. The tenure of trustees like the petitioner is two years under

Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments Act, 1959. In this case, the trustees were appointed pursuant

to G.O.Ms.No.269, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments

Department, dated 06.11.2023 and subsequently renewed vide

G.O.Ms.No.483, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments

Department, dated 30.12.2025.

43. The records that have been filed before this Court clearly

indicate that, in the past Kudamuzhukkus/Kumbabishegams held in the

years 1995 and 2009, the names of the then Board of Trustees were

printed in the invitation. This practice has not been followed for the

present Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam to be held on 17.09.2026.

44. Both the first and second respondents have washed their hands

_______________

Page No. 21 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

of the matter, stating that they had no role in instructing the third

respondent to deviate from the past practice of printing the names of the

then Board of Trustees appointed under Section 47 of the Act in the

invitation.

45. The act of the third respondent in excluding the names of the

Board of Trustees in the invitation, by deviating from the past practice

followed, clearly indicates arbitrariness and an attempt on the part of the

third respondent to prevaricate the safeguards under Rules 14 and 15 of

the Functioning of the Board of Trustees Rules, framed under Section

116(2) read with Sections 47, 48 and 49 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, vide G.O.Ms.No.4524,

Revenue, dated 05.11.1960. An elaborate procedure has been prescribed

under the Rules for the Executive Officer to implement the decisions of

the Board of Trustees.

46. As per Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules, all matters relating to the

administration of the religious institution shall be decided at the meetings

of the Board of Trustees. The Executive Officer or the Chairman of the

Board of Trustees, as the case may be, shall carry into effect the decisions

of the Board of Trustees after obtaining the orders of the competent

_______________

Page No. 22 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

authority on individual subjects.

47. Thus, it is incumbent on the third respondent to either inform

the Board of Trustees of the decision that he proposes to take and

thereafter obtain the approval of the Commissioner under Section 23 of

the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

48. As per Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules, the Executive Officer (in

the case of a religious institution having an Executive Officer) or the

Chairman of the Board of Trustees, as the case may be, may, in case of

emergency, ascertain the opinion of the Board of Trustees by circulation

of the records among all the trustees and in case of unanimity of opinion,

carry out the decision. If there is a difference of opinion among the

trustees during such circulation, the matter shall be considered at an

emergent meeting of the Board of Trustees concerned for that purpose.

Every unanimous decision ascertained through circulation shall be placed

before the next meeting of the Board of Trustees for confirmation.

49. Rules 14 and 15 of the Functioning of the Board of Trustees

Rules and Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable

_______________

Page No. 23 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

Endowments Act, 1959, are reproduced below:-

Rule 14 Rule 15 Section 23

All matters relating

to the administration

of the religious

institution shall be

decided at the

meetings of the

Board of Trustees.

The Executive

Officer or the

Chairman of the

Board of Trustees, as

the case may be, shall

carry into effect the

decisions of the

Board of Trustees

after obtaining the

orders of the

competent authority

on individual

subjects.

(1)The Executive Officer

(in the case of a

religious institution

having an Executive

Officer) or the

Chairman of the Board

of Trustees, as the

case may be, may, in

case of emergency,

ascertain the opinion

of the Board of

Trustees by circulation

of the records among

all the trustees and in

case of unanimity of

opinion carry out the

decision. If there is a

difference of opinion

among the trustees

during such

circulation, the matter

shall be considered at

an emergent meeting

of the Board of

Trustees concerned for

that purpose.

(2)Every unanimous

decision ascertained in

circulation shall be

placed before the next

meeting of the Board

of Trustees for

confirmation.

23. Powers and duties of

the Commissioner in

respect of temples and

religious endowments. -

Subject to the provisions of

this Act, the administration

of all temples (including

specific endowments

attached thereto) and all

religious endowments shall

be subject to the general

superintendence and control

of the Commissioner and

such superintendence and

control shall include the

power to pass any orders

which may be deemed

necessary to ensure that such

temples and endowments are

properly administered and

that their income is duly

appropriated for the

purposes for which they

were founded or exist:

Provided that the

Commissioner shall not pass

any order prejudicial to any

temple or endowment unless

the trustees concerned have

had a reasonable opportunity

of making their

representations.

50. Thus, the third respondent has acted beyond the scope of the

_______________

Page No. 24 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

powers vested with him and has unnecessarily precipitated the issue and

thereby embarrassed the Board of Trustees and perhaps the first and

second respondents, as admittedly, the decision has been taken without

the consent of the second respondent.

51. The past practice and the current practice of printing the names

of the Board of Trustees of various temples under the H.R. & C.E.

Department have been deviated from. The printing of the invitations and

distribution of the same by printing the names of the other dignitaries as

per the usual protocol without the names of the Board of Trustees is now a

fait accompli.

52. There is nothing much that can be done to remedy the damage

caused to the office of the third respondent by the third respondent as he

appears to have acted unilaterally. The alacrity shown by the third

respondent to create a wedge in the temple administration is to be rebuked

and frowned upon.

53. The learned Additional Advocate General-I for the first

respondent and the learned Additional Advocate General-V for the second

_______________

Page No. 25 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

respondent have stated that 3,000 invitations have been printed and

distributed. This also indicates that things are beyond redemption at this

stage, considering the fact that the temple rituals are to commence from

06.09.2026.

54. The only other direction, which can be issued at this stage, is

that the first, second and third respondents shall ensure that in the stone

inscription for the Kudamuzhukku/Kumbabishegam to be held on

17.09.2026, the names of the Board of Trustees are included, so that there

are no further complaints and unnecessary politicking in the religious

affairs of the temple.

55. The official respondents as well as the third respondent as the

Executive Officer of the temple shall not deviate from the customary

practice of the temple followed in the administration of the affairs of the

temple in future and shall act strictly in accordance with law. The third

respondent is directed to act strictly in accordance with the decisions of

the Board of Trustees under the aforesaid Rules.

56. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed

_______________

Page No. 26 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

02.09.2026

JEN

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

To

1.The Secretary,

Commercial Taxes, Registration and

Religious Endowments Department,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

_______________

Page No. 27 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

C.SARAVANAN, J.

JEN

W.P.(MD) No.25104 of 2026

02.09.2026

_______________

Page No. 28 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis