Disposed¶31

Sri Sakthi Periyamariamman Temple v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC3 Nov 2025WP/5976/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; Article 226; Writ of Mandamus; HRCE / Hindu Religious Charitable & Endowment Department; interference with temple administration; Sri Sakthi Periyamariamman Temple, Mettur Dam, Salem; non-hereditary trustees; Arulmigu Thangamalai Periyamariamman Temple; similarity of temple names; Societies Registration Act; District Registrar; G.O.(Pa) No.223 dated 16.05.2025; duplicate / subsequent writ petition WP.No.24495 of 2025 (order dated 08.07.2025); earlier petition disposed of; WMP.No.6632 of 2024 closed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No fresh relief; the writ petition was disposed of recording that the petitioner's grievance stood sufficiently answered by the order dated 08.07.2025 in WP.No.24495 of 2025; connected Miscellaneous Petition (WMP.No.6632 of 2024) closed; no costs. ¶31

Sri Sakthi Periyamariamman Temple Vs the Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether a Writ of Mandamus should be issued directing the respondents and their authorities not to interfere with the peaceful administration of the petitioner's temple without due process of law.

¶14

Court's answer

Since the identical relief sought in this writ petition had already been sought by the same petitioner in the subsequent WP.No.24495 of 2025 (decided 08.07.2025), in which the petitioner's grievance was recorded as sufficiently answered, the Court found no necessity to decide the present, earlier-filed petition for the same relief and disposed of it accordingly.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (P.B. Balaji J.) — W.P. No.5976 of 2024 and WMP.No.6632 of 2024, decided 03.11.2025. Sri Sakthi Periyamariamman Temple (represented by its Secretary P.Arjunan), Mettur Dam, Salem District, had sought under Article 226 a Writ of Mandamus restraining HR&CE authorities (Assistant Commissioner, Kottai Mariamman Thirukovil Office, Salem; Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sokkanathar Thirukovil) and impleaded third respondent T.M.Sendilkumarr (impleaded 11.07.2024) from interfering with the temple's peaceful administration without due process of law. Counsel pointed out that the same petitioner subsequently filed WP.No.24495 of 2025 seeking the very same relief, decided on 08.07.2025, wherein the Court — on the second respondent's written instructions — recorded that the appointment of non-hereditary trustees pertained to Arulmigu Thangamalai Periyamariamman Temple, Mettur (the similarity of names with the petitioner temple having caused the confusion), that any questioning of the petitioner's registration lay before the District Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, and that the grievance was thereby sufficiently answered. Holding there was thus no necessity to decide the present, earlier-filed petition for the same relief, the Judge disposed of the writ petition, closed the connected miscellaneous petition, and made no order as to costs. No independent adjudication of the alleged interference occurred in this judgment.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.11.2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶4

W.P. No.5976 of 2024

¶5

and WMP. No.6632 of 2024

¶6

Sri Sakthi Periyamariamman Temple, Represented by its Secretary P.Arjunan, Thangapuripattinam, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

¶7

Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable & Endowment Department, Kottai Mariamman Thirukovil Office, Salem.

¶10

2.The Executive Officer, Hindu Religious Charitable & Endowment Department, Arulmigu Sokkanathar Thirukovil, Mettur Town and Taluk, Salem District.

¶11

3.T.M.Sendilkumarr

¶12

(impleaded as third respondent as per order dated 11.07.2024).

¶13

Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents and their authorities not to interfere with the peaceful administration of the petitioner's temple without due process of law.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents and their authorities not to interfere with the peaceful administration of the petitioner's Temple without due process of law.

¶21

Mr.Nalliyappan, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the order passed on 08.07.2025 in WP.No.24495 of 2025, where the present writ petitioner came before this Court by way of subsequent writ petition, however, seeking the very same relief, viz., to forebear the respondents from disturbing the petitioner’s peaceful administration of the Temple in the guise of the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.(Pa) No.223 dated 16.05.2025.

¶22

This Court after recording the written instructions received by the learned Additional Government Pleader, held as follows:

¶23

“5. On carefully considering the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record and also considering the written instructions given by the second respondent, it is seen that the appointment of non-hereditary trustees pertained to Arulmigu Thangamalai Periyamariamman Temple, Mettur. There is similarity in the names since the name of the petitioner temple is Arulmigu Sri Sakthi Periyamariamman Temple. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that an attempt is

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

being made by non-hereditary trustees to interfere with the affairs of the temple. The written instructions makes it clear that the appointment of the non-hereditary trustees is only to manage and administer the Arulmigu Thangamalai Periyamariamman Temple, Mettur. That apart, steps are also being taken to question the registration of the name of the petitioner as Sri Sakthi Periyamariamman Temple.

¶27

6. In the light of the above stand taken by the respondents, the grievance expressed by the petitioner is sufficiently answered. If the respondents are questioning the registration of the name of the petitioner before the concerned District Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, it has to be independently worked out in the manner known to law.”

¶28