Periyasamy Vs Anguthan

The present W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2025 is filed by the 11^th respondent in the writ petition challenging the order dated 10.01.2025 passed in W.P. (MD).No.1213 of 2025.

¶36

The writ petition was filed by one Anguthan who is arrayed as 1^st respondent herein, for Writ of Mandamus to direct the 8^th respondent Assistant Commissioner HE&CE and 10^th respondent Executive Officer to hand over the temple keys to the writ petitioner so as to perform poojas and ensure the peaceful worship of villagers in Arulmighu Adaikalam Kaatha Ayyanar Temple Pon Valayapatti Village, Ponnamaravathy Taluk, Pudukottai District. The Writ Court had disposed the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the 10^th respondent Executive Officer for getting the keys daily to perform rituals for the day and at the end of last pooja hand over the keys to the EO. Aggrieved over the same the present Writ Appeal is filed.

¶37

3/12

¶38

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

¶39

W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2025

¶40

The contention of the appellant is that the Writ Court had allowed the writ petition at the admission stage itself without giving opportunity to the appellants and the writ petition does not deserves such an emergency order. Since the appellant is heard in the writ appeal, hence the contention of opportunity is no longer available to the appellant. As far as emergency is concerned, in temple daily poojas ought to be carried out, even though it is not emergency, but needs immediate attention. Further it is seen already the same Court had considered the issue of opening the temple in W.P.(MD)No.28971 of 2024 and passed an order dated 04.12.2024. Hence, there is no impediment for the Court to pass orders. Therefore, plea that there is no emergency is rejected.

¶41

The next contention of the appellant is that the impugned order amount to recognised the poojariship rights of the writ petitioner. The said contention cannot be accepted. If the poojariship rights were recognised, then the Court would have directed the writ petitioner to keep the keys with himself. But the Writ Court had carefully directed the writ petitioner to get the keys from EO, to perform poojas for the day and again handover the keys to EO again after last pooja was over. Therefore the said argument is rejected.

¶42

4/12

¶43

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

¶44

W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2025

¶45

The next contention of the appellant is that already the writ petitioner had filed a petition under section 63(e) of HR&CE Act before Joint Commissioner regarding poojari rights and the same is pending. Hence the present impugned order would affect the rights of the appellants. The said concern is only apprehension, since the Writ Court has not recognised the writ petitioner right as poojari, but has only given direction as temporary measure. If the appellant is aggrieved, then this Court is directing the Joint Commissioner to consider the said application filed by the writ petitioner Anguthan uninfluenced of the orders passed by the Court in any of the writ petitions or writ appeals and shall consider the said application on its own merits and as per documents that would be filed by the parties and pass orders.

¶46

The next contention of the appellant is that the 9^th respondent had appointed one neutral person not belonging to any group in consonance with the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.28971 of 2024 dated 04.12.2024. Hence the present order passed in W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025 granting permission to Anguthan to get keys would be against the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.28971 of 2024. This Court perused the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.28971 of 2024,

¶47

5/12

¶48

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

¶49

W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2025

¶50

nowhere the Court had directed to appoint any neutral person. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

¶51

“2. Pursuant to the orders passed on 02.12.2024, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the keys of the temple had been taken over possession by the 8^th respondent and the temple was opened for the worship of the devotees. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 11 and 12 would object the handing over of the key to the petitioner alone.

¶52

3. The Division Bench of this Court had already directed the 8^th respondent herein or any Officer nominated by him to take over the charge of the temple immediately and to do the needful. When such an order had been made by the Division Bench, the Assistant Commissioner being an Officer under the statute cannot perform the daily rituals of the temple. It is in his wisdom, he has handed over the keys to the petitioner for carrying out the daily rituals of the temple . If the respondents 11 and 12 are aggrieved, they can always approach the Joint Commissioner, the 7^th respondent herein, under Section 63(e) of the HR & CE Act, 1959 to redress their grievances. Since the order of the Division Bench had directed the Assistant Commissioner to manage the affairs of the temple and the 8^th respondent had been managing the affairs of the temple in his wisdom, any order that may be passed to hand over the keys to any other person would only involve a disputed question of fact , which cannot be gone into by this Court in the present writ petition.

¶53

6/12

¶54

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

¶55

W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2025

¶56

4. In view of the fact that the temple had now been opened, the same shall be kept open to the worship of the devotees and it has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the 8^th respondent had appointed the 10^th respondent as his nominee to manage the affairs of the temple. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with liberty to the respondents 11 and 12 as indicated above.

¶57

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents 11 and 12 would suggest to this Court that the 10^th respondent may be vested with the authority to decide as to whom the keys should be handed over. Section 63(e) of the HR & CE Act, 1959, does not confer a power either with the Executive Officer or the Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE and it can only be decided by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as per Section 63(e) of the Act. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

¶58

The Writ Court has held that the HR&CE official in his wisdom had handed

¶59

over the keys to the petitioner (i.e. Anguthan). Further held if the respondents are aggrieved of handing over keys to Anguthan, they are at liberty to approach the Joint Commissioner by filing appropriate application. As on date the appellants had not filed any such application challenging the appointment of the petitioner. Furthermore held if any order is passed to hand over the keys to any other person, the same would only involve a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be gone into by the Writ Court and in the present writ petition.

¶60

7/12

¶61

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

¶62

W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2025

¶63

Infact the impugned order passed in W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025 only confirms the earlier order passed on W.P.(MD)No.28971 of 2024. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is without any basis.

¶64

The next contention of the appellant is that another writ petition is W.P.(MD)No.604 and 669 of 2025 was filed by the said Anguthan and one Thirupathi and the same was disposed of on 08.01.2025 granting permission to conduct ponjal festival by following the rituals of a particular village. In the said order it has been stated that the poojaris would be selected by the villagers by performing certain rituals, hence the impugned order is interfering in the aforesaid practice. The said order is extracted hereunder:

¶65

“3. Even though there is a disputed claim by the respective learned counsel that the pongal festival is being conducted only by a particular set of villagers without going into the rival claims of the petitioners, considering the fact that the pongal festival is to be held on 14.01.2025 and 15.01.2025, this Court to give a quietus to the entire issue by considering the fact that the pongal festival is the festival that has been celebrated by all Tamil people is of the view that the Pongal festival can be conducted by any villagers by following the rituals of the particular village on the said dates in the petition mentioned temples.

¶66

8/12

¶67

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

¶68

W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2025

¶69

4. None of the villagers shall prevent the other villagers to conduct poojas in a particular manner or through a particular person. The fourth respondent in WP(MD) No.604 of 2025, namely the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, is also requested to take necessary steps to see that no untoward incident takes place during the festival time. The parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate authority seeking to resolve the dispute as regards to the performance of the poojas for the next year.

¶70

5. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

¶71

The said order was passed only to conduct Pongal festival and it is not stating anything regarding the appointment of poojari or selection of poojari by conducting rituals. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is without any basis.

¶72

If there is any apprehension to the appellant or any other persons regarding the poojariship rights, this Court make it clear that the orders passed in W.P.(MD)No.28971 of 2024, W.P.(MD)No.1213 of 2025, W.P.(MD)No.604 of 2025 and W.P.(MD)No.669 of 2025 had not stated anything regarding poojariship rights at all. The said Anguthan was appointed by the HR&CE officials based on their wisdom only, as a temporary arrangement. The said Anguthan had already filed petition under section 63(e) of HR&CE Act. And

¶73

9/12

¶74

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

¶75

W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2025

¶76

the appellants are also at liberty to file application challenging the temporary arrangement. The appellants are also at liberty to file application regarding the contention of selection of poojari by conducting rituals. The Joint Commissioner shall consider the application filed by the writ petitioner Anguthan and also shall consider the application of the appellants, if so filed, uninfluenced of the orders passed by the Court in any of the writ petitions or writ appeals and shall consider the said application(s) on its own merits and as per documents that would be filed by the parties and thereafter pass orders.

¶77

With the above said observations, the impugned order is confirmed and the writ appeal is disposed of with certain directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶78

J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.] 03.06.2025

¶79

Index : Yes / No Tmg

¶80

10/12

¶81

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

¶82

W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2025

¶83

To: