Disposed

Thirumalainayakkanpalayam Peoples Welfare Association v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC16 Dec 2025WP/49353/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition seeking direction for appointment of a fit temple manager and archakas. It noted a fit person was already appointed and mandated that challenges to specific archaka appointments be made separately. The Court directed respondents to consider petitioner-recommended archakas for the upcoming festival if needed.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to consider recommended archakas for Brahmotsavam; petition disposed of.

Thirumalainayakkanpalayam Peoples Welfare… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.49353 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P No. 49353 of 2025

¶7

Thirumalainayakkanpalayam Peoples Welfare Association Represented By Its Vice President Mrs Chandra, Having Office At No.105, Perumal Kovil Street, Thirumalainayakkanpalayam, Jothipuram (post) Coimbatore District 641 047. … Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Joint Commissioner,

¶10

Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowment Department, Coimbatore District. … Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent to immediately act upon the petitioner’s Representation dated 05.12.2025 as expeditiously by appointing an eligible Thakar (Fit person) for the Temple and by appointing two Archakas with Proper agamic practice as recommended by the petitioner and pass

¶12

For Petitioner: Mr.I.Sidharthan For Respondent: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader, HR&CE

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed for a direction to act upon the petitioner’s

¶15

representation dated 05.12.2025 as expeditiously as possible by appointing a fit

¶16

person for the Arulmigu Shree Boomi Neela Sametha Shree

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.49353 of 2025

¶19

Karivaradharajaperumal Thirukoil, situated at Thirumalainaickenpalayam, Coimbatore District and also by appointing two archakas with proper agamic practice, as recommended by the petitioner.

¶20

2. Upon perusing the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and

¶21

hearing the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the grievance of the petitioner is threefold.

¶22

Firstly, the petitioner want a proper fit person to be appointed who will take charge and run the affairs of the temple.

¶23

Secondly, the petitioner grievance is that there are proper archakas who know the Pancharatra Agama tradition who are available and without appointing them, two other persons who do not even know Tamil have been appointed as Archakas and therefore, the petitioner wants the respondents and the Management of the temple to appoint the said Mr.N.Hari and Mr.N.Vishnu as archakas, as they will be better suited to perform the poojas in the Temple, having knowledge of the respective Agamas and being experts in the performance of the poojas with reference to the above mentioned Temple.

¶24

Thirdly, the grievance expressed is with reference to the Brahmotsavam.

¶25

Since the Brahmotsavam festival is going to be conducted sooner, during the month of December 2025 itself, the existing archakas will not be sufficient and

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.49353 of 2025

¶28

will not be in a position to conduct the utsavam in the best possible manner by duly following all the Agamas and rituals of the temple.

¶29

3. Per contra, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan the Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that, as far as the first grievance is concerned, by an order dated 30.10.2025, the Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Sukrawarpettai, has been appointed as the fit person of the present temple. He has also taken charge and is managing the affairs.

¶30

4. As far as the second prayer is concerned, the said two archakas were appointed by a valid appointment order and if the petitioner or any other archakas are aggrieved, they have to challenge the order of appointment of the said two archakas, namely, Sukesh Madhukeshwar Hegde and Basayya Channayya Chapparadallimath.

¶31

5. With reference to the Brahmotsavam, if the services of the said two archakas are not enough, naturally they will going for the temporary services of the other archakas also, in which case the suggestions made by the petitioner can also be considered along with the other available options.

¶32

6. I have considered the rival submissions made and perused the material records of the case.

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.49353 of 2025

¶35

7. With reference to the first prayer in the writ petition, regarding fit

¶36

person, the order of appointing the fit person dated 30.10.2025 is produced before the Court. It is also stated that the said person has taken charge and is managing the affairs of the Temple and the same is recorded.

¶37

8. With reference to the second prayer, as far as the appointment of Mr.Sukesh Madhukeshwar Hegde and Mr.Basayya Channayya Chapparadallimath is concerned, if the petitioner or for that matter any other archakas, is aggrieved of the said appointments, the said appointments have to be challenged in the manner known to law, either before the respondent authorities or before this Court in the manner known to law, by duly adding the said persons as the respondents in the respective proceedings. The same is not done. Therefore, this Court, in the present writ petition, cannot pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of the appointment of the said two persons.

¶38

9. As far as the 3^rd prayer relating to the upcoming Brahmotsavam is concerned, the submission made by the Learned Special Government Pleader that the options given by the petitioner, namely N.Hari and N.Vishnu, will also be considered along with the other archakas for the conduct of the festival is also recorded. If at all, the respondents are in need of additional archakas, they can consider, among other persons, these two persons also, provided they are eligible and if the respondents found them fit.

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.49353 of 2025

¶41

10. In view of the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition

¶42

stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

16-12-2025

¶44

Neutral Citation:No. bsm

¶45

¶46

1.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowment Department, Coimbatore District.

¶47

The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras.

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.49353 of 2025

¶50

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. bsm

¶51

W.P.No.49353 of 2025

¶52

16-12-2025

¶53

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

Thirumalainayakkanpalayam Peoples Welfare Association v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thirumalainayakkanpalayam Peoples Welfare Association v. the Joint 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

A.Karthik, Vs Mrs. Rashmi Siddharth Zagade and 4 others

P.Sivagnaesh Vs the Joint Director

Dr.Suvarna M.T. Vs Dr.P.Senthilkumar, Ias., and 2 others

Arjun College of Technology Vs Anna University

A.Venkatasubramaniam Vs State of Tamilnadu

S.Dinesh Gurukkal Vs the Commissioner