Disposed

B.Ramkumar Adityan, v. Additional Chief Secretary

Madras HC6 Jul 2026WP(MD)/18870/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Department to publish the notice regarding revised temple fees on its website and extended the time for filing objections. The court declined to rule on the competency of the Thakkar, noting it is a matter for the appointing authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to publish the notice dated 20.06.2026 on the Department's website and extend the time for objections till 21.07.2026.

B.Ramkumar Adityan, Vs Additional Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 06.07.2026

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶5

W.P(MD)No.18870 of 2026 and

¶6

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13961, 13963 & 13964 of 2026

B.Ramkumar Adityan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Additional Chief Secretary,

¶11

Tourism, Culture and Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶12

Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶13

St. George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.

¶14

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowment Department, No.119, Uthammar Gandhi Road,

¶15

Chennai - 600 034.

¶16

3.The Regional Joint Commissioner, Thoothukudi Region,

¶17

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Alageshapuram, Thoothukudi - 628 002.

¶18

4.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Hindu Religious Endowment Department, Tiruchendur - 628 215.

¶19

1/7

¶20

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

¶21

5.The Thakkar,

¶22

Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Hindu Religious Endowment Department, Tiruchendur - 628 215.

¶23

6.Arul Murugan ... Respondents

¶24

Prayer : Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the Impugned Order of the 4th Respondent made in Na. Ka. Number. 3078/2026 - 1/Aah (5) dated 20.06.2026 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently, direct the 2nd and 4th Respondents to issue Notice or Announcement for the Public Opinion to introduce Break Darshan, Fix and Enhance Fees for Special Darshan, Special Poojas and Poojas after appointment of Board of Trustees as requested in the Representation of the Petitioner dated 13.03.2026 and 25.06.2026.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankar For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan (R1 to R3) Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.I.Muthiah Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu Mr.A.K.Sriram (R4 & R5) Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthugeethiayan

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. )

¶28

The writ petition had been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus

¶29

calling for the records relating to the order of the fourth respondent/Joint

¶30

2/7

¶31

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

¶32

Commissioner / Executive Officer of Arulmighu Subramanian Swamy Temple at Thiruchendur dated 20.06.2026 and quash the same. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction against the second and fourth respondents/ Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowments Charitable Endowments and the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowments Charitable Endowments to issue notice or announcement for the public opinion to introduce, Break Darshan, Fix and Enhance Fees for Special Darshan, Special Poojas and Poojas after appointment for Board of Trustees.

¶33

2.The petitioner draws inspiration on the representations he had given on 13.03.2026 and 25.06.2026. But though the relief in the writ petition is with respect to a particular notice dated 20.06.2026, the petitioner also seeks an interim injunction, a restraint order against the sixth respondent, who is none other than the 5 th respondent /Thakkar of the temple, from functioning as Thakkar. That relief is beyond the scope of the nature of relief sought in the writ petition.

¶34

3.Be that as it may, in the notice dated 20.06.2026, as complained by the petitioner the rates fixed for various poojas and other rituals performed in the temple had been revised. They have not been determined, but rather opinion

¶35

3/7

¶36

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

¶37

had been invited from public regarding the revised rates and those who are interested were also invited to tender their objections. The petitioner is one of those who had raised objections and had given his opinion on 25.06.2026. He had then filed sworn affidavit on 29.06.2026. He has not raised any apprehension that his representation dated 25.06.2026 would never be considered by the respondents. There is no reason why they should disregard it. There is every reason why they would also consider the same just as they would consider every other representations given.

¶38

4.The other contention of the learned Counsel is that a wider publicity could have been given to the notice dated 20.06.2026, as the devotees would be coming from all over the place and they must be prepared to pay their increased rate as and when they come into effect.

¶39

5.We would only direct the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowments Charitable Endowments Board to put up in the website of the Hindu Religious and Endowments Charitable Endowments Department, the particular notice dated 20.06.2026 and the time for any objection to be received from 07.07.2026 till 21.07.2026 and thereafter, to take a final decision.

¶40

4/7

¶41

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

¶42

6.With respect to the contention that the 5 th respondent/ Thakkar is not

¶43

competent, we offer no opinion, since it is the prerogative of the respondents to

¶44

nominate or appoint the trustees. Till such time, the 5th respondent is indeed having every authority to administer the temple in the better interest of the temple and the devotees.

¶45

7.In view of the same, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction as above, namely to put up the notice dated 20.06.2026 in the website of the Hindu Religious and Endowments Charitable Endowments Department and to extend the time for objections till 21.07.2026. Thereafter, decisions could be taken by the respondents. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

[C.V.K, J.] [R.S.V, J.] 06.07.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No ta

¶47

¶48

1.Additional Chief Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, St. George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.

¶49

5/7

¶50

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

¶51

2.The Commissioner,

¶52

Hindu Religious Endowment Department, No.119, Uthammar Gandhi Road, Chennai - 600 034.

¶53

3.The Regional Joint Commissioner, Thoothukudi Region,

¶54

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Alageshapuram, Thoothukudi - 628 002.

¶55

4.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Hindu Religious Endowment Department, Tiruchendur - 628 215.

¶56

5.The Thakkar, Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Hindu Religious Endowment Department, Tiruchendur - 628 215.

¶57

6/7

¶58

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

¶59

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶60

¶61

W.P(MD)No.18870 of 2026

¶62

06.07.2026

¶63

7/7

¶64

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

B.Ramkumar Adityan, v. Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ramkumar Adityan, v. Additional Chief Secretary

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

The Chief Educational Officer Vs C. Amali Jerosy

Jeyanthi Vs The District Collector

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Y.Edward Jenner

The Executive Engineer Vs R.Murugesan

The Managing Director Vs T.James Manohar

T.Mukesh Vs The Commissioner