Petitioner challenged an order concerning his hereditary trusteeship of a temple, contending he had been removed. The court found the impugned order to be only a charge memo, held the apprehension of removal unfounded, permitted him to submit an explanation, and directed the disciplinary proceedings be concluded expeditiously.
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.48168 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.48168 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.53827 of 2025
A.Venkata Subramanian ... Petitioner
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 11.08.2023 vide his Proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.3783/2020/aa1 and quash the same and
W.P.No.48168 of 2025 consequently direct the third respondent to execute the previously passed order dated 22.05.2023 bearing Sel.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3783/2020/AA 1.
Petitioner : Mr.Suriya Kannan Sabanayagam For R1 to R3 : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.R.Sanjay
ORDER
The writ petition is filed calling for the records relating to the impugned
order passed by the third respondent dated 11.08.2023, to quash the same and consequently to direct the third respondent to execute the earlier order dated 22.05.2023.
upon perusing the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the material records of the case, it can be seen that the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his family alone are the Hereditary Trustees. While an earlier order was passed appointing the petitioner as a Hereditary Trustee, now merely by siding with the petitioner’s brother and the other Hereditary Trustees, the petitioner is sought to be removed from the hereditary trusteeship.
3.Per contra, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the 2/5
W.P.No.48168 of 2025 impugned order is nothing but a charge memo. He would submit that if the
petitioner gives an explanation, the same will be considered in accordance with law.
16.12.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl 3/5
W.P.No.48168 of 2025
To
4/5
W.P.No.48168 of 2025
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
W.P.No. 48168 of 2025
16.12.2025
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 removed the petitioner from hereditary trusteeship or was only a charge memo.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Venkata Subramanian
State of Tamil Nadu, Through Principal Secretary of HR & CE
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Tamil Nadu
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Coimbatore District
The Executive Officer, A/m.Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Pollachi
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
