Disposed

Ramamoorthy v. The Executive Officer

Madras HC1 Jun 2026WP(MD)/8582/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A temple occupant challenged an eviction/demand communication from the Ramanathasamy Temple's Executive Officer. The court observed the notice itself contemplated further action under Section 80 of the HR&CE Act through due process and declined to intervene at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed without interference; defences left open; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Ramamoorthy Vs The Executive Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8582 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8582 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6320 and 6321 of 2022

¶8

Ramamoorthy ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Executive Officer, Arul Migu Ramanathasamy Temple, Rameshwaram, Ramnad District. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to impugned order of eviction made by the Respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1207-4/2021/A6 dated 09.04.2022 and quash the same as illegal.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.8582 of 2022

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rameez For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramesh

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

2.The petitioner challenges the impugned communication issued

¶20

by the Executive Officer of Ramanathasamy Temple, Rameshwaram. The communication itself makes it clear that in the event of failure to comply with the demand, action will be taken under Section 80 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In other words, the Executive Officer himself proposes to take action only by adopting due process of law. Therefore, interference at this stage is not warranted.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.8582 of 2022

¶24

3.Leaving open the petitioner's defences, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.P. J.,) 01.06.2026

¶26

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶27

3/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.8582 of 2022

¶30

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and R.POORNIMA, J.

¶31

ias

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.8582 of 2022

¶33

01.06.2026 (1/4)

¶34

4/4

¶35

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

Ramamoorthy v. The Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramamoorthy v. The Executive Officer

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

Muhammadu Husainudden, Vs Joesphine Stella

K.Arumugam Pillai Vs The Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy Srirengam

Thavasipaul, Vs the District Collector

N.Rajaservai Vs Tmt.S.Jarina Banu

Antonypushpam. P Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

1. Rajalakshmi (Died) 2. Kamaraj Vs Jothi