P.Sankar Vs The Joint Commissioner

Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith permit and facilitate the petitioner and the Thuvar Village community to perform the 5^th day Mandagapadi on 24.06.2026 including the customary rights of: (a) tying the banana plant at the entrance of the Thirukalvana Mandapam; (b) bringing two bulls from Thuvar Village and yoking them to the Yanai Vahana Ratham (Elephant-mounted Chariot); (c) driving the said Chariot and (d) placing the deity's idol on the Chariot and taking it in procession through the streets, all strictly in accordance with the century-old custom and the schedule issued by the third respondent permit and facilitate the petitioner and the Thuvar Village Community to perform the 9^th day Ther Thiruvizha (Chariot Festival) on 28.06.2026, including the customary rights of (a) the petitioner, as Village Ambalakarar, waving the white cloth (Vellai Visuthal) as the signal to commence the pulling of the temple chariot; (b) all communities of Thuvar Village jointly pulling the leftside chariot rope (Idathu Pakka Ther Vadam); and (c) placing the wooden brake-blocks (Mithikattai) behind the chariot during the procession all strictly

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

WP(MD). No.17540 of 2026

¶25

in accordance with the century-old custom and the schedule issued by the third respondent with the help of the fifth respondent police based on the representation of the petitioner dated 21.06.2026.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sankar

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban Government Standing Counsel for R1 & R2

¶28

Mr.S.Madhavan for R3

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to permit and facilitate the petitioner and the people of Thuvar Village to perform the 5^th day Mandagapadi on 24.06.2026 by including the various customary rights that are claimed by the petitioner.

¶31

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, certain rituals and rights are customarily being performed on behalf of the Thuvar Village Community, and the petitioner has, in the past, had the privilege of doing the same. While so, citing law and order issues, the festival for this year was not conducted. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by way of

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

WP(MD). No.17540 of 2026

¶35

W.P. (Crl.)(MD)No.3249 of 2026, and this Court directed the conduct of festival in accordance with the schedule and permitted the respective Mandagapadidhars to perform the Mandagapadi strictly in terms of the said schedule. Therefore, since the petitioner is entitled, as per the schedule, to perform the rituals on the 5^th day Mandagapadi, and the same is now not being permitted, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent temple would submit that firstly, on the 5^th day, in view of the law and order situation, it has now been decided to conduct the Veethi Ula, but the deity is going to be taken around only inside the temple premises, and the festival is going to be conducted in a different pattern. Even otherwise, it is pleaded that two others persons, namely Keelatheru and Vadakutheru, are claiming the same right of ceremonies and therefore, in view of the rival claims, the petitioner cannot be permitted to do the same.

¶37

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

WP(MD). No.17540 of 2026

¶41

The general policy of the Department, as per the circular dated 01.06.2006, is that no individual honor shall be permitted. If any person pleads that, by way of custom or other right, he has an individual honor or the right to perform particular aspects/rituals, it is for the concerned person to approach the first respondent-Joint Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, by duly arraying the rival claimants as respondents. Upon such application being filed, the first respondent-Joint Commissioner shall issue notice to the parties concerned and also any other person who is interested in opposing the claim of the petitioner and also the temple, and the same shall be decided in the manner known to law. The stand of the temple that, until then, no other person will be permitted to get the special honor is also recorded.

¶42