Allowed¶52

P.Subramanian v. The Commissioner

Madras HC3 Dec 2025WA(MD)/765/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) allowed: locus standi of a Hindu worshipper; interpretation of 'person having interest' in Section 6(15), Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959; suo motu revision regarding hereditary trusteeship of Arulmigu Ponnar Sankar Temple, Valanadu, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District; dismissal of writ petition for want of locus standi set aside; Commissioner, HR&CE directed to decide revision within six months after notice; merits left open; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; order dated 25.10.2019 in W.P(MD)No.22763 of 2019 set aside; first respondent directed to conclude the suo motu revision proceedings on merits after notice to interested persons within six months; no costs. ¶52

P.Subramanian Vs The Commissioner — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner (appellant) has locus standi as a 'person having interest' under Section 6(15) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 to seek disposal of the suo motu revision proceedings concerning the hereditary trusteeship of the temple.

¶50

Court's answer

Any Hindu is entitled to offer his worship and therefore his locus standi cannot be questioned.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitioner falls within the ambit of the 'person having interest' definition in Section 6(15) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959; the learned single Judge failed to take note of this, and on this sole ground the order dated 25.10.2019 is set aside.

¶50

Key takeaways

The first respondent (Commissioner, HR&CE) is directed to conclude the petition-mentioned suo motu revision proceedings on merits and in accordance with law after putting all interested persons on notice within six months from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶51
The Division Bench expressly clarified that it has not gone into the merits of the matter, leaving the merits of the revision proceedings open.obiter¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Locus standi — 'person having interest' under Section 6(15) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 — writ petitioner sought direction to Commissioner, HR&CE to dispose of suo motu revision proceedings concerning cancellation of the declaration that the office of trustee of Arulmigu Ponnar Sankar Temple is hereditary — writ petition dismissed by learned single Judge for want of locus standi — Held, any Hindu is entitled to offer his worship and his locus standi cannot be questioned; the writ petitioner clearly falls within the ambit of the Section 6(15) definition — order of the learned single Judge set aside on this sole ground — first respondent directed to conclude the suo motu revision proceedings on merits and in accordance with law after putting all interested persons on notice within six months — Division Bench expressly did not go into the merits — Writ Appeal allowed, no costs.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.765 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶8

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2020

¶9

P.Subramanian

¶10

... Appellant / Writ Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Commissioner,

¶13

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

¶14

Chennai – 600 034.

¶15

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

¶16

Trichy.

¶17

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ponnar Sankar Temple, Valanadu, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District.

¶18

4.The Fit Person, Arulmigu Ponnar Sankar Temple, Valanadu, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District.

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.A.(MD)No.765 of 2020

¶22

5.N.R.Thiruvengatam 6.R.Chandrasekar ... Respondents / Respondents

¶23

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 25.10.2019 in W.P(MD)No.22763 of 2019 and allow the writ appeal.

¶24

For Appellant : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jeyaselan Government Advocate for R.1 & R.2

¶26

Mr.A.N.Ramanathan for R.3

¶27

Mr.G.Mathavan for R.4

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶30

Heard both sides.

¶31

2.The appellant herein filed W.P(MD)No.22763 of 2019 for

¶32

directing the Commissioner, HR&CE, Chennai to dispose of the petition mentioned suo motu revision proceedings. The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE had submitted a report for cancelling the order earlier passed declaring that the office of trustee of the petition mentioned temple is hereditary. This said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single

¶33

2/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.A.(MD)No.765 of 2020

¶36

lacks the

¶37

Judge vide order dated 25.10.2019 on the ground that the writ petitioner

¶38

lacks the locus standi . Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal has been

¶39

filed.

¶40

3.Section 6(15) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 reads as follows:

¶41

“6 (15) “ person having interest ” means—

¶42

(a) in the case of a math, a disciple of the math or a person of the religious persuasion to which the math belongs;

¶43

(b) in the case of a temple, a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple, or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat;

¶44

(c) in the case of a specific endowment, a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of the service or charity, or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the charity;

¶45

(d) in case of samadhi, brindhavan or any other institution established or maintained for a religious purpose, a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in such religious institution, or who is entiled to partake

¶46

3/6

¶47

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

¶48

W.A.(MD)No.765 of 2020

¶49

or in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat; ”

¶50

4.This definition has been interpreted in quite a few decisions. Any Hindu is entitled to offer his worship and therefore his locus standi cannot be questioned. The writ petitioner clearly falls within the ambit of the definition set out in Section 6(15) of the Act. This aspect of the matter was not taken note by the learned single Judge. On this sole ground, the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside.

¶51

5.The first respondent is directed to conclude the petition mentioned suo motu revision proceedings on merits and in accordance with law after putting all the interested persons on notice within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter.

¶52

6.This Writ Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶53

[G.R.S., J.] [R.K.M, J.] 03.12.2025 1/3

¶54

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA

¶55

4/6

¶56

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

¶57

W.A.(MD)No.765 of 2020