WP/39182/2026 of SENTHILKUMAR GANAPATHI Vs THE COMMISSIONER on 29 October 2026

Order

The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Erode, in O.A.No.4 of 2025. The application was filed by six persons belonging to two communities under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), claiming entitlement to honours throughout the day at Arulmigu Athanur Amman Temple, Ayipalayam, Athanur, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, during the Pongal festival held on a Friday in the Tamil month of Aippasi. Their claim is based on the stated tradition whereby members of the Kongu Vellala community residing in the villages collectively referred to as ‘Ettupatti’, namely, Athanur Ayipalayam, Athanur, Athanur Pudur, Alangattu Pudur, Thattankuttai Pudur and Uduppathan Pudur, proceed to the temple carrying ‘Mavilakku’ (lamp-shaped offerings made of rice flour and jaggery), accompanied by traditional music. They follow the cart of the Sengunthar Mudaliar community from the local Vinayagar temple, with their own carts carrying participants in various costumes following

them. The six applicants in O.A.No.4 of 2025 are respondents 5 to 10 herein.

2. According to the applicants before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Erode, they belong to the Kongu Vellala Gounder community of the Ettupatti villages and the Sengunthar Mudaliar community of Athanur village. They claim to have been performing the rituals associated with the Pongal festival of Athanur Amman Temple during the Tamil month of Aippasi, with the entire expenditure for those rituals being borne by members of the Kongu Vellala Gounder community. A copy of the application was affixed at the temple and at the Village Administrative Office. An enquiry was thereafter conducted. Four witnesses, including two of the applicants, were examined, and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. The report of the Executive Officer was also filed and considered. The Regional Joint Commissioner sought a report from the Rasipuram Range Inspector, who submitted his report in Na.Ka.No.15/2025 dated 28.05.2025. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Regional Joint Commissioner found that members of the Kongu Vellala Gounder community from the six villages collectively known as ‘Ettupatti’ and members of the Sengunthar Mudaliar community of Athanur village were entitled to continue performing their respective rituals and customs during the Aippasi Pongal festival. The order further provided that, after the conclusion of the pooja, ‘Vibuthi’ should first be offered to members of the Kongu Vellala Gounder community from the six villages, followed by the person belonging to

the Athanur Sengunthar Mudaliar community dressed as ‘Rajapathar’, thereby continuing the honours and customs observed at the temple on that day. The order was passed on 08.05.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 23.09.2026.

3. The writ petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed ex parte and that none of the members of his community was impleaded in the application filed by respondents 5 to 10. According to him, in view of the longstanding dispute and pending court proceedings, the Regional Joint Commissioner, Erode, ought to have summoned members of his community suo motu to participate in the enquiry. He further contends that no custom of offering the first and second ‘Vibuthi’ honor to particular communities was followed during the Pongal festival and that there are no documents or inscriptions at the temple substantiating such a custom.

4. The petitioner further contends that the procedure prescribed for considering an application under Section 63 of the Act was not followed. Once it was brought to the notice of the Regional Joint Commissioner, Erode, that the temple deity is the kula deivam (family deity) of the petitioner’s community, members of that community ought to have been summoned before the enquiry proceeded. It is also contended that the reports of the Executive Officer and the Rasipuram Range Inspector are contradictory. While the Executive Officer’s

report does not refer to any custom of offering the first and second ‘Vibuthi’ to particular communities, the Range Inspector’s report states that such a custom must be followed.

5. The application was filed under Section 63(e) of the Act, which reads as follows: “63. Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to decide certain disputes and matters.—Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters: — ...

(e) whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter;”

6. Though caste-based discrimination cannot be permitted, Section 63(e) of the Act empowers the competent authority to enquire into a claim to customary honours and established usage in a religious institution.

7. The power to determine a customary honour does not, by itself, establish the validity of the claim. The existence of the custom and the legality

of the honour claimed are distinct questions. Any determination under Section 63(e) must conform to the constitutional guarantees of equality and non- discrimination; the mere assertion of antiquity cannot validate an otherwise impermissible discriminatory practice.

8. An order passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner under Section 63(e) of the Act is appealable to the Commissioner under Section 69. The Act also provides for a statutory suit under Section 70 against the Commissioner’s order in matters falling within that provision.

9. The petitioner’s principal grievance is that the principles of natural justice were not followed. He contends that, although the temple deity is the kula deivam of his community, neither he nor the other members of his community were given notice of the proceedings. On that basis, he has directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Section 63(e) of the Act enables the competent authority to determine claims to honours and established usage in a religious institution. The existence and scope of the alleged custom are matters to be examined on the evidence placed before that authority, subject to the statutory remedies provided under the Act.

11. It is submitted that the temple is about 700 years old and is a public place of worship. Its administration was taken over by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department several years ago. The temple festival is ongoing and is scheduled to conclude on 30.10.2026. The petitioner’s grievance is that, although the poojas and rituals are performed traditionally during the first nine days, the first and second ‘Vibuthi’ honours on the tenth day are accorded exclusively to particular communities.

12. The Regional Joint Commissioner conducted an enquiry into the application filed by respondents 5 to 10 under Section 63(e) of the Act. Upon examining the witnesses and considering the documents on record, he concluded that the two communities were entitled to the first and second ‘Vibuthi’ honours.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the petitioner and the members of his community were not put on notice, the impugned order is an ex parte order and cannot be sustained, particularly in view of the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice.

14. The availability of a statutory appeal is not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. A violation of the principles of natural justice is a recognised exception to the rule of alternative remedy. The

petitioner’s objection therefore requires consideration and cannot be rejected merely because an appeal is available.

15. In the present case, the record, as referred to above, discloses publication of the application at the temple and at the Village Administrative Office, followed by an enquiry. The petitioner nevertheless contends that individual notice was necessary in view of the asserted interest of his community and the earlier disputes. Publication is not being treated by this Court as conclusively satisfying every requirement of notice. Whether the procedure adopted was sufficient in the circumstances, whether persons whose interests were directly affected ought to have been impleaded or individually notified, and whether the alleged omission caused prejudice require examination of the relevant proceedings and records. These objections, together with the alleged inconsistency between the two reports and the challenge to the proof of custom, can be examined in the statutory appeal.

16. The Regional Joint Commissioner concluded, on the evidence produced by respondents 5 to 10, that, on the final day of the ten-day festival, a person belonging to the Kongu Vellala Gounder community is entitled to the first ‘Vibuthi’ honour and a person belonging to the Athanur Sengunthar Mudaliar community, dressed as ‘Rajapathar’, is entitled to the second ‘Vibuthi’ honour. Having regard to the reasons recorded in the impugned order and the

fact that the festival is scheduled to conclude on 30.10.2026, only three days from the date of this order, this Court considers it appropriate not to interfere with the arrangement for the present year. The claimed entitlement of respondents 5 to 10 and the communities represented by them shall remain subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the petitioner or any other aggrieved person under Section 69 of the Act.

17. The limited non-interference for the present festival is an exercise of discretion concerning the immediate relief sought; it is not an affirmation of the disputed custom on the merits. The approaching conclusion of the festival does not cure any procedural illegality. It is relevant only to the decision whether to disturb the arrangement at this stage while leaving the substantive and procedural objections open for examination in the statutory proceedings. Observance of the arrangement during this year shall not, by itself, be treated as proof of the disputed custom or as creating any additional entitlement for future years. The appellate authority shall consider the objections independently, after affording the affected parties an opportunity of being heard, without treating the observations in this order as findings on the merits. Any appeal shall be subject to the applicable statutory requirements, including limitation; this order does not determine its admissibility or extend the prescribed period.

18. In these circumstances, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order in relation to the festival for the present year, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail himself of the remedy under Section 69 of the Act. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. K.SURENDER J. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VCA To,

1. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai- 034.

2. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Erode.

3. The Executive Officer Arulmigu Atthanur Amman Thirukkovil, Atthanur, Ayipalayam, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.

4. The Fit Person Arulmigu Atthanur Amman Thirukkovil, Atthanur,Ayipalayam, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.

K.SURENDER J. VCA WP No. 39182 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.43989 and 47137 of 2026 27-10-2026