Disposed

V.Veerapathiran v. Hindu Religous and Charitable Endowments Department

Madras HC1 Jul 2026WP/25299/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to stop Balalayam/renovation works at two temples unless a Tiruppani Committee with representatives of both Ballellar and Erumaner communities was formed. They narrowed the prayer to participation; the Court impleaded the works contractor suo motu and directed that pending works be shared between petitioners and respondent 4.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to carry out one pending Balalayam work at their cost; police protection ordered against obstruction.

V.Veerapathiran Vs Hindu Religous and Charitable Endowments Department — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WP No. 25299 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P. No. 25299 of 2026

¶7

and W.M.P.No.27595 of 2026

¶8

V.Veerapathiran 2. S.Vasudevan

¶9

A.Venkatesan

¶10

4. P.Vijayakumar ..Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Rep. by its Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034.

¶13

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Salem, Salem District.

¶14

The Arulmighu Veerabadraswamy Temple and Arulmighu Veereswaraswamy Temple, Rep. by its Executive Officer (In-Charge), Office at Vennankodi Muniyappasamy Temple, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem District.

¶15

B.V.B.Madhavaraj The Secretary, representing "Iruvamanai Avaru" of Devangar Sect, S/o.V.Pasavappa Chettiar, 9-2, 157, Thirumalai Street, Elampillai - 637 502. Salem District. ..Respondents

¶16

[Respondent-4 is impleaded suo motu by order of this Court dated 01.07.2026]

¶17

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶18

__________ Page1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 25299 of 2026

¶21

praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from in any manner conducting the Balalayam or Renovation work or Kumbabishekam of the Temple namely Arulmighu Veerabadraswamy Temple and Arulmighu Veereswaraswamy Temple at Amarakundhi Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, without forming a Tiruppani Committee consisting of the representatives of both the communities namely, "Ballellar" and "Erumaner" as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.02.2025 and till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.168 of 2025 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Omalur.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Selvaraj for M/s.G.J.Adhithiya

¶23

For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Chandraprabu, Government's Counsel (HR & CE) for R1 to 3 Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan for R-4

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed to forbear the respondents from in any manner conducting the Balalayam or Renovation work or Kumbabishekam of the Temple namely Arulmighu Veerabadraswamy Temple and Arulmighu Veereswaraswamy Temple at Amarakundhi Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, without forming a Tiruppani Committee consisting of the representatives of both the communities namely, "Ballellar" and "Erumaner" as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.02.2025 and till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.168 of 2025 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Omalur.

¶26

__________ Page2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 25299 of 2026

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents are going to conduct Balalayam on 03.07.2026 in the Temple namely Arulmighu Veerabadraswamy Temple and Arulmighu Veereswaraswamy Temple at Amarakundhi Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, ignoring the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners have made a representation on 25.06.2026 to the respondents 1 to 3 requesting them not to conduct Balalayam but the same has not been considered so far. Hence, this petition.

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing, on notice, Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan, learned Counsel submitted that the work order for conducting the Balalayam in Arulmighu Veerabadraswamy Temple and Arulmighu Veereswaraswamy Temple at Amarakundhi Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District has been given to the Secretary, representing "Iruvamanai Avaru" of Devangar Sect and out of seven works, five works have been carried out already.

¶31

Considering the above submission this Court suo motu implead B.V.B.Madhavaraj, Secretary, representing "Iruvamanai Avaru" of Devangar Sect, S/o.V.Pasavappa Chettiar, 9-2, 157, Thirumalai Street, Elampillai - 637 502, Salem District as fourth respondent in this Writ Petition.

¶32

__________ Page3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 25299 of 2026

¶35

Though the petitioners sought for larger relief of forbearing the

¶36

respondents from in any manner conducting the Balalayam or Renovation work or Kumbabishekam of the Temple namely Arulmighu Veerabadraswamy Temple and Arulmighu Veereswaraswamy Temple at Amarakundhi Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, without forming a Tiruppani Committee consisting of the representatives of both the communities namely, "Ballellar" and "Erumaner" as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.02.2025 and till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.168 of 2025 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Omalur, now restricts their prayer to permit them to contribute and participate in the Balalayam scheduled to be conducted on 03.07.2026.

¶37

Now, the learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded fourth respondent would submit that the petitioners can very well contribute and participate in the Balalayam which is going to be conducted on 03.07.2026. He further submitted that out of seven works, five works have already been completed and two works are pending.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶39

Considering the submission of the learned counsel on either side,

¶40

Page4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

WP No. 25299 of 2026

¶43

this Court directs the respondents to provide one work, out of the pending two works, to the petitioners to carry out at their costs and the remaining one work to be provided to the fourth respondent to complete at their costs and by doing so, the Balalayam or Renovation work or Kumbabishekam of the Temple namely Arulmighu Veerabadraswamy Temple and Arulmighu Veereswaraswamy Temple at Amarakundhi Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, as scheduled on 03.07.2026, shall be conducted with the participation of these petitioners. It is made clear that in the event of either of the party makes any obstruction, the official respondents are directed to seek the help of the jurisdictional police to provide police protection for the smooth conduct of Balalayam on 03.07.2026.

¶44

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

01-07-2026

¶46

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRM

¶47

Note: Issue order copy on 02.07.2026

¶48

__________ Page5 of 6

¶49

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

¶50

WP No. 25299 of 2026

¶51

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

¶52

SRM

¶53

¶54

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034.

¶55

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Salem, Salem District.

¶56

The Executive Officer (In-Charge), Arulmighu Veerabadraswamy Temple and Arulmighu Veereswaraswamy Temple, Office at Vennankodi Muniyappasamy Temple, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem District.

¶57

WP No. 25299 of 2026

¶58

01-07-2026

¶59

__________ Page6 of 6

¶60

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

V.Veerapathiran v. Hindu Religous and Charitable Endowments Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Veerapathiran v. Hindu Religous and Charitable Endowments Department

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

Ponnusamy Vs The District Collector

P. Babu Vs The District Collector

K.Mayilvaganam Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Pachamuthu Vs The Tahsildar

G.Baskar Gopal Vs The District Collector

G.Jeyabalan Vs the District Collector