Disposed¶24

Suthan v. The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer

Madras HC7 Jul 2026WP(MD)/18683/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple shop re-location; HR&CE Kanyakumari District Temples, Suchindram; Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 to consider representation dated 13.02.2026 for alternative shop; verification whether petitioner's deceased father Subramaniyan was a lessee; eight-week timeline; interim directions in W.P. (MD) No.26210 of 2025; disposed of with directions, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondent to verify whether the petitioner's father, Subramaniyan, was a lessee of the respondent Temple and, if the verification is in the affirmative, to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2026 on its own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks; no order as to costs. ¶24

Suthan Vs The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent should be directed by a Writ of Mandamus to consider an alternative place/shop for the petitioner by considering his representation dated 13.02.2026.

¶10

Court's answer

The respondent is directed to verify whether the petitioner's father, Subramaniyan, was a lessee of the respondent Temple.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

If the verification is in the affirmative, the respondent is to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2026 on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶29

Key takeaways

The consideration is to be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks, and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD) No.18683 of 2026, decided 07.07.2026 by C.Saravanan J. Petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus (under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) directing the Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, HR&CE Department, Kanyakumari District Temples, Suchindram, to consider an alternative place for shop by considering his representation dated 13.02.2026. Per learned counsel, the shop was originally allotted to the petitioner's father Subramaniyan, after whose demise the petitioner continued in occupation paying enhanced lease rent; however, the Temple ordered re-location pursuant to this Court's interim directions in W.P. (MD) No.26210 of 2025. The learned Standing Counsel was unable to confirm whether the father was a lessee, submitting that the representation would be considered if so found. Recording the submission, the Court disposed of the petition directing the respondent to verify the father's lesseeship and, if in the affirmative, to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 13.02.2026 on its own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.18683 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.18683 of 2026

¶7

Suthan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Kanyakumari District Temples, Suchindram - 629 704. ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider alternative place for shop in favour of the petitioner by considering the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2026.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh Standing Counsel

¶13

ORDER

¶14

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ

¶15

of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider allotting an alternative

¶16

shop to the petitioner by considering his representation dated 13.02.2026.

¶17

Page No. 1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.18683 of 2026

¶20

2 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the shop in

¶21

question was originally allotted in the name of the petitioner's father, namely, Subramaniyan, and that after his demise, the petitioner has been in occupation of the same and has been paying the enhanced lease rent to the respondent Temple. However, the respondent has ordered re-location of the shop pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.26210 of 2025.

¶22

3 . The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, is unable to confirm whether the petitioner's father, Subramaniyan, was a lessee of the respondent Temple. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that, if it is found that the petitioner's father was indeed a lessee of the respondent Temple, the petitioner's representation will be considered in accordance with law.

¶23

4 . The said submission is recorded.

¶24

5 . In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a

¶25

direction to the respondent to verify whether the petitioner's father, Subramaniyan, was a lessee of the respondent Temple and, if such

¶26

____________ Page No. 2 of 4_

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.18683 of 2026

¶29

verification is in the affirmative, to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2026, on its own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

NCC : Yes / No 07.07.2026 (2/4) smn2 To

¶31

The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Kanyakumari District Temples, Suchindram - 629 704.

¶32

Page No. 3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.18683 of 2026

¶35

C.SARAVANAN, J.