Writ petition for mandamus directing appointment as temple poojari dismissed. Court held that poojariship cannot be claimed on a hereditary basis, but petitioner may apply under Section 63(e) of the HR & CE Act based on custom.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.9417 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 07.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P(MD)No.9417 of 2026
M.Sundara Moorthy ... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent herein to consider the petitioners representation dated 10.03.2026 and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as the poosari of the Arulmigu Sri Chenthetti Ayyanar Temple, situated at
1
W.P(MD)No.9417 of 2026
Kovilur village, Vembakottai taluk, Virudhunagar district and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner :M/s.S.Mamtha For R1 and R2 :Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader For R3 :Mr.P.Mahendran
ORDER
The writ petition is filed for mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2026 and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as the Poosari of Arulmigu Sri Chenthetti Ayyanar Temple, situated at Kovilur village, Vembakottai taluk, Virudhunagar district.
2
W.P(MD)No.9417 of 2026
07.04.2026
Index: Yes Speaking Order: Yes Neutral Citation: No rgm
3
W.P(MD)No.9417 of 2026
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
rgm
To
W.P(MD)No.9417 of 2026
07.04.2026
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a hereditary right to appointment as the poojari of the temple?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Seshammal v. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶24
Seshammal and Others etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972 2 SCC 11) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Sundara Moorthy
The Commissioner, The Commissioner Office, HR and CE Department, Chennai
The Joint Commissioner, Joint Commissioner Office, HR and CE Department, Madurai District
The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vishavanatha Swamy Thirukkovil, 1/c, Special Officer, Arulmigu Senthatti Ayanar Thirukovil, Keelanmarainadu Village, Sivakasi Ta
D.Bharatha Chakravarty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
