A temple's Executive Officer, also Special Officer, appealed against a Single Judge's order concerning temple administration. The Division Bench held he was not a person aggrieved and lacked locus standi; public interest in filing did not confer maintainability. The writ appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable.
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.A.(MD)No.1483 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
W.A.(MD)No.1483 of 2022 and
C.M.P.(MD)No.12264 of 2022
The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vishavanatha Swamy Thirukkovil, I/c, Special Officer, Arulmigu Senthatti Ayanar Thirukovil, Keelanmarainadu Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
... Appellant
Vs.
1.C.Murugaboopathi
5.Muthaiah ... Respondents
1/4
W.A.(MD)No.1483 of 2022
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 08.04.2022, passed in W.P.(MD) No.23697 of 2018 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Mahendran
For Respondents : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh for R1 Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan, Government Advocate for R2 & R3. Mr.S.Madhavan for R4 Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for R5
JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2.The Executive Officer of Arulmighu Vishavanatha Swamy
Temple who has been officiating as Special Officer of the petition mentioned temple namely, Arulmighu Senthatti Ayanar Temple, Keelamarainadu Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District has filed
this writ appeal questioning the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.23697 of 2018.
3.We fail to understand as to how an Executive Officer can be said
to be a person aggrieved. A writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the
2/4
W.A.(MD)No.1483 of 2022
Letters Patent. It specifically states that only a person aggrieved can maintain an appeal. None of the rights of the appellant herein have been infringed. He is only a Special Officer who was appointed pursuant to the direction of this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that only after the Executive Officer assumed charge as Special Officer, order was brought in the administration of the temple which otherwise was riven by internal and factional disputes.
4.The Special Officer might have filed the writ appeal in public interest and in the interest of temple and devotees. But that itself will not confer locus standi on the appellant herein. We are clearly of the view that the appellant lacks the locus standi to maintain the writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed as non maintainable. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.K.M. J.,) 11.12.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias
3/4
W.A.(MD)No.1483 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and R.KALAIMATHI, J.
ias
To:
W.A.(MD)No.1483 of 2022
11.12.2025 (1/5)
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Executive Officer/Special Officer of a temple has locus standi to maintain a writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vishavanatha Swamy Thirukkovil, I/c, Special Officer, Arulmigu Senthatti Ayanar Thirukovil, Keelanmarainadu Village
C.Murugaboopathi
The District Collector, Virudhunagar District
The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Virudhunagar Division
S.Rajendran
Muthaiah
G.R.Swaminathan
R.Kalaimathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
