Disposed

Anguthan v. The District Collector

Madras HC10 Jan 2025WP(MD)/1213/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking keys of a village temple to conduct poojas as its Poosari. The Court allowed the petitioner, already recognised by villagers at a peace committee meeting, to receive keys daily from the Executive Officer for performing rituals, until the Joint Commissioner decides his pending application, which was to be disposed of within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to receive temple keys daily from respondent No.10 for performing poojas; Joint Commissioner directed to decide pending application within six months.

Anguthan Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD).No.829 of 2025

Anguthan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶12

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illuppur, Pudukottai.

¶13

3.The Tahsildhar, Ponnamaravathy Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶14

4.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkotai District. Pudukottai.

¶15

5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukottai District.

¶16

_________Page 1 of 9

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025

¶19

6.The Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathy Police Station, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukottai District.

¶20

7.The Joint Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Trichy.

¶21

8.The Assistant Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Pudukottai.

¶22

9.The Inspector, HR and CE Department, Pudukottai.

¶23

10.The Executive Officer, Sri Muthumariamman Temple, Konnaiyur, Pudukottai.

¶24

11.Periasamy

¶25

12.Chinniah

¶26

.. Respondents

¶27

Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.8 and 10 herein to hand over the temple keys to the petitioner so as to perform poojas and ensure the peaceful worship of villagers Arulmighu Adaikalam Kaatha Ayyanar Temple, Pon Valayapatti Village, Ponnamaravathy Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶28

_________Page 2 of 9

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025

¶31

For Petitioner	:	Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Advocate
For R1 to R3	:	Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan Government Advocate
For R4 to R6	:	M/s.M.Aasha Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R7 to R9	:	Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader
For R10	:	Mr.G.Mathavan
For R11 & R12	:	Mr.M.Zerin Mathew

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.8 and 10 herein to hand over the temple keys to the petitioner so as

¶34

to perform poojas and ensure the peaceful worship of villagers Arulmighu Adaikalam Kaatha Ayyanar Temple, Pon Valayapatti Village, Ponnamaravathy Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶35

Even though, the serious issues have been raised as to the rights of the petitioner, to be the Poosari of the Temple, it is to be seen that in the peace committee meeting that was conducted on 25.09.2024, to resolve the dispute between the respondent Nos.11 & 12, the respondent Nos.11 & 12 had accepted the petitioner to be the Poosari who has been

¶36

_________Page 3 of 9

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025

¶39

previously conducting the Pooja in the temple had permitted him to conduct the Poojas.

¶40

It has also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner herein moved to the Joint Commissioner/respondent No.7 herein by taking out an application under Section 63 (e) of the HR and CE Act, 1959. The said application is also pending before the respondent No.7.

¶41

The Writ Petitioner had also moved to this Court, in WP(MD).No.28971 of 2024 alleging that the respondent Nos.11 & 12 had locked the temple and when the matter was taken up on 04.12.2024, pursuant to a direction issued by this Court, the learned Special Government Pleader on instructions had submitted that the respondent No.8 had taken back the keys and opened the temple for worship of the devotees.

¶42

5.In the said writ petition, the respondent Nos.11 & 12 had objected the handing over of the keys to the petitioner alone. The objection was not rejected by this Court but by holding that the Assistant

¶43

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

¶44

_________Page 4 of 9

¶45

W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025

¶46

Commissioner who was directed by this Court to take over the possession can hand-over the keys to the petitioner for carrying out the daily rituals of the temple. However, after disposal of the writ petition for some reason or the other, the respondent Nos.8 & 10 had refused to hand-over the keys to the petitioner and seems to have appointed a 3^rd party for performing Poojas of the Temple.

¶47

When the petitioner had already been recognised by the villagers, in the peace committee meeting held on 25.09.2024 to be the Poosari, who had been performing the Poojas of the Temple and his claim before the respondent No.7 is also pending, I am of the view that the petitioner can continue to conduct the Poojas to the Temple, subject to a decision to be taken by the respondent No.7 on his application pending before him. Since, the keys are with the respondent No.10, it is made clear that the petitioner herein can approach the respondent No.10 on daily morning and receive the keys from the respondent No.10, perform the rituals for the day and at the end of the last Pooja of the Temple, hand over the keys to the respondent No10. This arrangement can continue till the decision is taken by the respondent No7.

¶48

_________Page 5 of 9

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025

¶51

It is also made clear that the petitioner shall also perform the

¶52

Poojas as per the rituals that had been hitherto followed.

¶53

The respondent No.7 is also directed to dispose of the the petition filed by the petitioner before him within a period of six (6) months from today.

¶54

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition

¶55

stands disposed of. No costs. Connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶56

10.01.2025

¶57

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes nst

¶58

_________Page 6 of 9

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025

¶61

¶62

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶63

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illuppur, Pudukottai.

¶64

3.The Tahsildhar, Ponnamaravathy Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶65

4.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkotai District. Pudukottai.

¶66

5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukottai District.

¶67

6.The Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathy Police Station, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukottai District.

¶68

7.The Joint Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Trichy.

¶69

8.The Assistant Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Pudukottai.

¶70

_________Page 7 of 9

¶71

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

¶72

W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025

¶73

9.The Inspector, HR and CE Department, Pudukottai.

¶74

10.The Executive Officer, Sri Muthumariamman Temple, Konnaiyur, Pudukottai.

¶75

Page 8 of 9

¶76

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

¶77

W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025

¶78

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶79

nst

¶80

W.P.(MD).No.1213 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD).No.829 of 2025

¶81

Dated: 10.01.2025

¶82

_________Page 9 of 9

¶83

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

Anguthan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anguthan v. The District Collector

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.Ayyanar Vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar

R.Rajasekaran, Vs the Assistant Director

M/s.Woodland Import and Export Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Tvl Remi Fasteners Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Tvl. Kaniyamparampil Steels Vs The Joint Commissioner of Sgst (Intelligence)

V.Thangaraj, S/O.Veeraiyah Vs the Deputy Registrar of