High Court directed a temple to be known as 'Veereshwararswamy @ Veerapathiraswamy' temporarily while parties approach Civil Court. Interim order prohibits animal sacrifice to preserve sanctity during the interim period.
Directed temple to be called Veereshwararswamy @ Veerapathiraswamy pending Civil Court decision; prohibited animal sacrifice in the interim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.3720 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.3720 of 2023 And
W.M.P.Nos.3802, 8903 and 21312 of 2023
1.S.Vasudevan
2.V.Veerapathiran
... Petitioners
Vs.
3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (HR and CE), Kottai Mariyammankoil Compound, Salem – 1.
5.M.Amirthalingam 6.O.N.S.Nanjappan 7.M.N.D.Rajalingam 8.V.Kandasamy 9.R.Subash 10.V.S.K.Palanisamy ... Respondents
1/6
W.P.No.3720 of 2023
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records impugned order dated 19.01.2023 made in R.P.No.2 of 2012 passed by the second respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the name of the Temple as Veerapathiraswami Temple, situated at Amarakunthi Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.L.Rajah Senior Counsel for M/s.M.R.Jothimanian For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan for R1 to R3 Government Advocate (HR & CE) Mr.SP.Yuaraj for R4 R5, R7 – No Appearance Mrs.G.Thilakavathi for R6, R8 to R10 for Mr.B.Balaji
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order dated 19.01.2023 made in R.P.No.2 of 2012 passed by the second respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the
2/6
W.P.No.3720 of 2023
respondents 1 to 3 to restore the name of the Temple as Veerapathiraswami Temple, situated at Amarakunthi Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.
2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Veerapathiraswami is the Kuladeivam of the petitioners and they have been worshipping the deity for several decades. The third respondent changed the name of the Temple as Veerapathiraswamy @ Veereshwararswamy Temple vide order dated 04.10.2010 and the same has been followed by all families of the petitioner's community from 2010 to till date, however, the second respondent vide order dated 19.01.2023, changed the name of the Temple as Veereshwarar Temple.
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the issue inbetween the two groups will get resolved only before the competent Civil Court and further submitted that till the issue gets resolved, the Temple may be called as Veerapathiraswamy @ Veereshwararswamy Temple.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents
3/6
W.P.No.3720 of 2023
submitted that all along the private respondents are worshipping Veereshwararswamy and the petitioners have no locus standi to change the name of the Temple and further submitted if the Temple name is changed to Veerapathiraswamy Temple, then they will start sacrificing goat and the sanctity of the deity will be lost.
5.The issue inbetween the petitioners and the private respondents is the dispute which has to be resolved before the competent civil Court. The petitioners claim that their family deity is Veerapathiraswamy and the private respondents claim that their family deity is Veereshwararswamy in respect of one Temple. In order to strike the balance inbetween the parties and as an interim measure, this Court directs that the Temple is to be called as Veereshwararswamy @ Veerapathiraswamy Temple and further directs that the parties shall not sacrifice any animal in the Temple. The petitioners as well as the private respondents are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court with regard to the name of the Temple and till the competent Civil Court decides the issue, the Temple shall be called as Veereshwararswamy @ Veerapathiraswamy Temple.
6.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No
4/6
W.P.No.3720 of 2023
closed.
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.09.2024
pri
Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No
To
1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (HR and CE), Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (HR and CE), Kottai Mariyammankoil Compound, Salem – 1.
3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (HR and CE), Kottai Mariyammankoil Compound, Salem – 1.
5/6
W.P.No.3720 of 2023
M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri
W.P.No.3720 of 2023 And W.M.P.Nos.3802, 8903 and 21312 of 2023
09.09.2024
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a dispute over deity name necessitates court intervention or is strictly a matter for Civil Court.
Whether interim direction prohibiting animal sacrifice is appropriate amidst unresolved religious dispute.
Whether petitioners possess locus standi to challenge name change affecting other worshippers.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Vasudevan and Others
The Commissioner, HR and CE
R.Moulisankar and Others
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
