Disposed

Mayil Vahana Rajasekar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC11 Nov 2025WP(MD)/27174/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing HR&CE authorities to enquire into alleged illegalities by the Thakkar and Inspector in granting leasehold rights over temple property and funds. The court noted the auction was subsequently conducted by newly nominated non-hereditary trustees, found the grievances to be based on suspicion and apprehension, and closed the writ petition as its purpose stood ach

What the court decided

AI extract

Mayil Vahana Rajasekar Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.27174 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.27174 of 2025

¶8

Mayil Vahana Rajasekar

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai.

¶13

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶14

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Ramanathapuram District.

¶15

3.The Executive Officer,

¶16

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Arulmigu Adhi Rethineswarar Temple, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

¶17

4.The Thakkar,

¶18

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Arulmigu Thirubuvaneswarar Thirukovil, Kumuliyendhal, Rajasingamangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.27174 of 2025

¶22

5.The Inspector,

¶23

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Arulmigu Thirubuvaneswarar Thirukovil, Kumuliyendhal, Rajasingamangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶24

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to hold an enquiry relating to the illegalities committed by the 4^th and 5^th respondents in connection with the grant of leasehold right to enjoy the properties of Arulmigu Thiruppuvaneswar Thirukovil, Rajasingamangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and the funds allocated to the said temple by the Government on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 11.08.2025 and to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.M.Uthiran

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok (R1, R2 & R5) Additional Government Pleader

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged illegalities

¶30

committed by R4 & R5 ie., the Thakkar and the Inspector of Arulmigu Thirubuvaneswarar Thirukovil, Kumuliyendhal, Rajasingamangalam

¶31

2/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.27174 of 2025

¶34

Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, in connection with the grant of leasehold rights in the property belonging to the aforesaid Temple.

¶35

2.When the matter came up for admission on 26.09.2025, we recorded the submission of Mr.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader, who appears for R1, R2 & R5, to the effect that the posts of Executive Officers and Thakkars are non-existent as on date, as non-hereditary trustees have been nominated who had assumed charge under proceedings dated 22.08.2025. We had also directed the petitioner to seek an amendment by filing proper petition.

¶36

3.When the matter is called today, we find that no petition for amendment has been filed.

¶37

4.However, Mr.Ashok, has produced written instructions,

¶38

wherein towards conclusion, the authorities state as follows:

¶39

“........... ghu;it (5)-y; fhZk; cjtp Mizau; cj;jutpd; gb Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapy; guk;giu my;yhj mwq;fhtyuhy; 07.10.2025 md;W jpUthlhid ruf Ma;tu; Kd;dpiyapy; epyj;jpw;F Vyk; elj;jg;gl;lJ. Nkw;gb nghJ Vyj;jpy; ,uz;L egu;fs; fye;J nfhz;ldu;. ,jpy; FkpopNae;jy; jpU.K.gpuG j / ng.Kj;Juhkypq;fk; vd;gtu; cau;e;j Nfs;tp Nfl;l epiyapy; &.77357 / -f;F Vyk; KbT nra;ag;gl;lJ vd;w tptuk; gzpe;J njuptpj;Jf; nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ. ”

¶40

3/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.27174 of 2025

¶43

5.In light of the conduct of the aforesaid auction by the non-hereditary trustees of the Temple, the grievances of the petitioner appear to be based on suspicion and apprehensions. Hence, there is no necessity for any enquiry as sought by the petitioner, as the auction proceedings have already been carried out by the competent authorities.

¶44

6.In view of the clarity now available and as the purpose of the writ petition stands achieved, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs.

¶45

[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 11.11.2025

¶46

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ps

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.27174 of 2025

¶50

¶51

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai.

¶52

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Ramanathapuram District.

¶53

3.The Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Arulmigu Adhi Rethineswarar Temple, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

¶54

4.The Thakkar,

¶55

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Arulmigu Thirubuvaneswarar Thirukovil, Kumuliyendhal, Rajasingamangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶56

5.The Inspector,

¶57

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Arulmigu Thirubuvaneswarar Thirukovil, Kumuliyendhal, Rajasingamangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶58

5/6

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.27174 of 2025

¶61

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶62

¶63

W.P.(MD)No.27174 of 2025

¶64

11.11.2025

¶65

6/6

¶66

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

Mayil Vahana Rajasekar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mayil Vahana Rajasekar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Pandian, Vs The Commissioner

The Director of Elementary School Education Vs D Thangaroja

The District Educational Officer Vs R.Soosai Mary

C.Chinnasamy Vs The District Collector

S.P.Energy Vs G.Sweetha Mahalakshmi

The Secretary to Government, Vs Karuppasamy