WP(MD)/28924/2026 of M.Veerabahumoorthi Vs The District Collector, Thoo on 5 October 2026

ORDER

Order dated 02.10.2026 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur/second respondent, is challenged in this petition primarily on the ground that the second respondent does not have the jurisdiction to entrust the administration of the temple to the HR&CE Department.

2. Adverting to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the conditions imposed therein and to the operative paragraph of the order directing that the temple shall come under the control of the Joint Commissioner with effect from 05.10.2026. He contends that said direction was issued without the authority of law.

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 08:45:29 pm )

3. Mr. R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, and Mr.M.Muthugeethaiyan, learned counsel, accepts notice for the third respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the third respondent referred to documents relating to the Sri Subramania Swami Kovil, Tiruchendur, including documents annexed thereto, indicating that the Arulmigu Arasalvar Temple is a sub-temple of the Sri Subramania Swami Temple. He points out that all these documents were placed before the Revenue Divisional Officer. He adds that the temple in question has always been under the supervisory control of the HR&CE Department and that such control does not flow from the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the first and second respondents points out that the impugned order records categorically that no legal rights are being decided under the order and that the parties should approach either a civil court or the authorities under the HR&CE Act to resolve disputes.

6. On perusal of the affidavit in support of the writ petition, it is noticeable that the petitioner asserts that he is one of the members

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 08:45:29 pm )

associated with the administration of the temple. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner is a trustee.

7. Reading the affidavit along with the impugned order, it is evident that the order was issued after hearing all parties concerned, including the petitioner. At page 23 of the paper book, in relevant part, it is recorded as under in the order: “,t;Tj;juTfs;> Nfhtpy; epyk; my;yJ nrhj;J cupik> cupikj;jFjp> guk;giu mu;r;rfu; cupik> tof;fkhd topghl;L cupik> G+i[ nra;Ak; kuGupik> mwq;fhtyu; gjtp> epu;thf cupik my;yJ jdpg;gl;l Kiwapy; G+i[ Nkw;nfhs;Sk; gpuj;Naf cupik njhlu;ghf ,Ujug;gpdUk; Kd;itf;Fk; ve;jnthU Nfhupf;ifiaAk; ,Wjpahfj; jPu;khdpg;gjhfNth my;yJ mq;fPfupg;gjhfNth fUjg;glhJ. Nkw;fz;l cupikfs; njhlu;ghd jfuhWfSf;F> rk;ge;jg;gl;l jug;gpdu; jFe;j cupikapay; ePjpkd;wk; my;yJ jFjptha;e;j mjpfhupia mZfp rl;lg;gb cupa gupfhuk; ngw;Wf;nfhs;syhk;.”

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 08:45:29 pm )

8. As can be seen from the above extract, neither property nor other rights relating to the temple were adjudicated and it was made clear that the parties should approach either a civil court or the authorities under the HR&CE Act for the resolution thereof. After noticing that the temple had been placed under lock and key by rival claimants (the petitioner and the fourth respondent), directions were issued to ensure that the temple remains open for worship by the public. To that extent, no interference is warranted.

9. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in the penultimate paragraph, the order records as under: “mjd;gb jpUr;nre;J}u; njg;gf;Fsk; mUfpy; cs;s murho;thu; jpUf;Nfhapypy; nghJkf;fs; kw;Wk; gf;ju;fspd; topghLfs; ghjpf;fg;glh tz;zk;> tof;fkhf

eilngw;W

te;j

G+i[fs;> nea;Ntj;jpaq;fs;> rhkpf;F cupa jpdrup G+i[fs; Kiwahf eilngWk; tifapy; NfhapyhdJ 05.10.2026 md;W ,iz Mizau;> jpUr;nre;J}u; mUs;kpF Rg;gpukzpaRthkp jpUf;Nfhapy; mtu;fshy; jpwf;fg;gl;L> mtu;fsJ fl;Lg;ghl;bNy ,aq;fp

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 08:45:29 pm )

tUk;.”

10. Especially after holding that no property or other temple- related rights were being decided, the second respondent should not have issued the above direction in the impugned order. Any right asserted by the HR&CE Department over the temple should be traceable to other documents and not to this order. Clarifying that the right to administer the temple cannot be established by the HR&CE Department on the basis of impugned order dated 02.10.2026, this Writ Petition is disposed of by leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies against the fourth respondent in accordance with law.

11. As stated in paragraph 8 supra, the directions contained in the impugned order with regard to the opening of the temple and in relation to preventing the petitioner from interfering with the functioning of the temple shall stand and are not being interfered with. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05-10-2026 PKN

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 08:45:29 pm )

To

1. The District Collector, Thoothukudi district Thoothukudi.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruchendur Thoothukudi District.

3. The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Thirukoil Tiruchendur Thoothukudi District.

4. Thiru Chidambara Vathiyar Tiruchendur Taluk Thoothukudi District.

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 08:45:29 pm )

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

,J.

PKN W.P (MD)No.28924 of 2026 05.10.2026

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 08:45:29 pm )