Dismissed

M.Parthipan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC8 Apr 2025WA(MD)/2357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal challenged refusal to form a Thiruppani Committee for reconstructing a demolished Ayyanar temple and to include the petitioner in it. The court upheld that only trustees may form such a committee under Rules 53-54 of the 1964 Rules, found no administration rights for villagers without declared claims, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to consider impleading petitioners' applications strictly per Rules 53 and 54; appellant permitted to donate or serve only as devotee.

M.Parthipan Vs The Commissioner — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Order Pronounced On

¶4

Order Reserved On 19.03.2025

¶5

.04.2025

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶8

W.A(MD)No.2357 of 2024 and

¶9

C.M.P.(MD).Nos.16337, 16739, 16740, 16741, 16743, 16744, 16745 of 2024, 624, 4436, 4645 of 2025

M.Parthipan

... Appellant

-Vs-

1.The Commissioner,

¶14

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶15

Chennai.

¶16

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thanjavur.

¶17

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Pudukkottai.

¶18

4.Periyakaruppan

¶19

5.Saravanakumar

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

1/11

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.A.(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶24

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.28087 of 2022, dated 26.03.2024. For Appellant :Ms.J.Anandhavalli For R1 to R3 :Mr.J.Ashok Additional Goverment Pleader For R4 and R5 :Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For impleading petitioner in C.M.P.(MD).No.4436 of 2025 :Mr.J.Anandkumar For impleading petitioner in C.M.P.(MD).No.16745 of 2024 :Mr.S.Muthukumar For impleading petitioner in C.M.P.(MD).Nos.16739 & 16740 of 2024 : Mr.Pandiyarajan For impleading petitioner in C.M.P.(MD).No.16741 of 2024 : Mr.U.Antony Santhosh For impleading petitioner in C.M.P.(MD).No.16743 of 2024 : Mr.K.Kumaravel For impleading petitioner in C.M.P.(MD).No.4645 of 2025 : Mr.A.L.Kannan ******

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J. )

¶27

This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the order, dated 26.03.2024, passed in W.P.(MD)No.28087 of 2022.

¶28

2/11

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.A.(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶31

The writ petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to form a Thiruppani Committee to expedite the reconstruction of the demolished Temple (Arulmighu Kazhani Udaiya Ayyanar alias Pannirendu Ayyanar and Sri Pathira Kaaliyamman Temple) situated in S.No. 6/1 comprises of 0.67.0 hectare in Aalapiranthan Revenue Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District, excepting persons who indulge in demolition of temple on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 05.12.2022.

¶32

The brief facts as stated by the writ petitioner are that long ago, the aforesaid temple was under the control of the King of Tanjore and now, is under the control of HR & CE Department. The temple contains ancient sculptures, Artha Mandapam, Maga Mandapam etc. with fine architecture. Also consists of main statues (suyambu form) inside the temple and other ancient monuments such as the statues of Ayyanar, Poorani, Pushkalai etc. Based on research the Archaeological Department states that this temple belongs to 18-19^th century. The main devotees of this temple are from villages such as Kanjiranvayal, Aalapiranthan, Karaiyapatti, Karuvadachery, Pachaloor, Kunnoor, Melur, Allampatti, Pallathivayal, Pariveeramangalam, Thulavoor, Perumalpatty Colony, Thaanchur, Naykarpatti, Vennaamazhiyenthal, Vediyangudi, Perunavaloor

¶33

3/11

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.A.(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶36

worship Lord Ayyanar as their “Kulathevam” (Clan God Temple). The festivals such as Sivarathiri and Chithirai Pournami are celebrated every year in a grand manner and during this festivals, Vanangamudi Pandarathaar Vagayara were being cherished in token of respect. The above said temple itself owns many lands. Inspite of so much glory this ancient temple was not at all maintained properly and small cracks were formed but was not noticed. Having knowledge about the glory some persons from Pachaloor Village had intentionally demolished the temple without even asking the people of the other villages and concerned authorities of HR&CE Department. Hence the petitioner submitted representation to the 3^rd respondent dated 27.04.2022 requesting to permit them to construct a new temple in the old place for their satisfaction and for the devotional needs of the people belonging to more than sixteen villages. While submitting the petition the petitioner had attached the photocopies of the old temple for reference purpose. In reply to the same, the 3^rd respondent communication in Na.Ka.No. 1306/2015/El dated 02.05.2022 had stated that on 29.04.2022 the Inspector and Assistant Engineer HR & CE had inspected the place and got to know about the demolition of the temple. Further, enquired the people of Pachaloor village and direction is issued to take action against the persons demolished the temple. Further directed to preserve the elephant statue and other idols of the temple. After consulting with the Regional Heritage Committee, High Court Committee

¶37

4/11

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.A.(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶40

appointed by the High Court and other concerned persons steps would be taken to do Thirupani along with the cooperation of the villagers. While that being so, some persons of Pachaloor village cleared the place without intimating to the HR & CE Department. Hence the 3^rd respondent had preferred complaint to the Inspector of Police, Aranthangi. It is further stated Rs.9,80,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only) was approved for the reconstruction of the above said temple. Thereafter, the petitioner further submitted another representation to the 3^rd respondent dated 01.08.2022 requesting for the formation of "Thiruppani Committee" in order to reconstruct the temple, but no action was taken, hence another representation dated 05.12.2022 was submitted for forming "Thiurppani Committee". In the second representation it was insisted that the persons who were involved in the demolition of temple, they should not be included in the "Thiruppani Committee". Again, there was no response, hence the writ petition was filed.

¶41

After considering the rival contentions, the Writ Court declined the request of the writ petitioner that the villagers of Aalapiranthan Village are having a right to administer the temple. The Writ Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to ensure that the Tirupani is conducted without any break and also with the cooperation of all the devotees of the temple including the writ petitioner.

¶42

5/11

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.A.(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶45

The Writ Court permitted the Assistant Commissioner to accept if any services or donations are provided by the writ petitioner. The Writ Court granted liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the Joint Commissioner for necessary order, if he is claiming any right over the temple. Aggrieved over the same, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ appeal.

¶46

The primary contention of the appellant / writ petitioner is that the Writ Court had held that the temple is in Pachaloor village, the same is administered by the Pachaloor village people but failed to consider that the temple is in Aalapiranthan village and the people of Aalapiranthan village also have right to administer the temple. This Court is rejecting the said contention since the 2^nd respondent Joint Commissioner had considered the said issue in O.A.No.38 of 1987 and has held that the villagers of Pachaloor is managing the temple, maintaining the accounts and are arranging for performance of poojas and the said finding is not set aside by any appellant authority. When the said finding has attained finality, then the petitioner and the Aalapiranthan villagers cannot claim administration of the temple. Further the petitioner and the Aalapiranthan villagers had not filed any separate petition to declare their alleged right to administer, in such circumstances the petitioner and the Aalapiranthan villagers cannot claim any right to administer the temple. Simply because the temple is in

¶47

6/11

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.A.(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶50

Aalapiranthan village, the said Aalapiranthan villagers cannot claim right to administer the temple and such claim is absolutely illegal.

¶51

The next contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶52

appellant / writ petitioner is that the petitioner had found the illegal act of demolition of temple, hence he is having a right to administer the temple, at least to be member of the Thiruppani Committee, hence the Thiruppani Committee ought to be formed and the petitioner ought to be appointed as one of the members of the said Thiruppani Committee. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Pachaloor villagers and Secretary of “Nalvazhi Narpani Mandram” who are arrayed as respondents 4 and 5 (according to respondent 4 and 5 the said Mandram is administering the temple) had submitted that as per Rules 53 and 54 of Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, 1964, the Thiruppani Committee shall consists of trustees of the temple as exofficio members and such other persons who may be coopeted by the trustees shall be members of Thiruppani Committee, hence the petitioner plea to include in Thiruppani Committee cannot be accepted. On perusal of the Rule 54, it states as under:

¶53

“54. The Thiruppani Committee shall consist of the trustees of the temple as ex-officio members and such other members who maybe coopted by the trustees. The formation of the Committee and the names of its members shall be reported-”

¶54

7/11

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.A.(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶57

When the said rules states that the trustees and other members who may be coopted by the trustees can form a Thiruppani Committee, then the petitioner has no right to claim that he should be included in the Thiruppani Committee. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant / writ petitioner has no right to claim to include him in the Thiruppani Committee at all. Since the appellant / writ petitioner had informed about the demolition of the temple, his claim can never be entertained if the claim is beyond law.

¶58

At this juncture, it is submitted by some impleading petitioners that they have submitted application to include them in the Thiruppani Committee and the applications are being processed. This Court without expressing any opinion on merits is simply directing the concerned authorities to consider the said applications strictly in the light of Rule 53 and 54 of the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, 1964 and pass orders.

¶59

The next contention of the petitioner is that the respondents 4 and 5 had formed Thiruppani Committee by including their relatives especially close relatives as committee members. When the respondents 4 and 5 are facing criminal charge for demolition of temple, the said respondents 4 and 5 are not entitled to be in Thiruppani Committee or his relatives. This Court is of the

¶60

8/11

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

W.A.(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶63

considered opinion under HR&CE Act, if the trustee is under suspension or facing any disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceedings, then the next in line is entitled to succeed in the said vacancy as per section 54 of Act. In such circumstances, the plea that the relatives of respondents 4 and 5 cannot be appointed in Thiruppani Committee has no legal stand at all.

¶64

The appellant / writ petitioner is permitted to donate as a devotee or to do service as a devotee alone.

¶65

For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant / writ petitioner has no right to claim to appoint himself as member of Thiruppani Committee and this Court is concurring with the finding of the Writ Court. Hence, the order passed by the Writ Court needs no interference at all. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶66

[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.] .04.2025

Index : Yes / No

Tmg

9/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

W.A.(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶72

To:

¶73

1.The Commissioner,

¶74

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.

¶75

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶76

Thanjavur.

¶77

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Pudukkottai.

¶78

10/11

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

W.A.(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶81

J.NISHA BANU, J. and S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶82

Tmg

¶83

W.A(MD)No.2357 of 2024

¶84

.04.2025

¶85

11/11

¶86

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Parthipan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Parthipan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukeshkannan Vs The Additional Director General of Prisons

The Chief Educational Officer Vs Jeyapaul T

A. Shiny Vs The Deputy Director

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs M. Ayyar

The Principal Secretary to the Government Finance Department Vs R.Rajagopal

The Chief Educational Officer, Vs K.Pattu