WA(MD)/1699/2026 of P. Thiruvel Vs The Joint Commissioner on 27 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN J.) The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 16.10.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.29945 of 2026.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was appointed as poosari pursuant to the proceedings dated 01.07.2021 and had continuously performed poojas in the subject temple and remitted the temple collections to the Executive Officer. It was contended that the Fit Person had interfered with the appellant's performance of poojas, notwithstanding the fact that no interim order had been passed in W.P.(MD)No.20068 of 2026, in which the appellant's appointment was under challenge.

3. The learned counsel further submitted that the proceedings initiated by the third respondent, Yogaraj, before the Joint Commissioner, Tiruppur, and the writ petition challenging the appellant's appointment were pending adjudication. In the absence of any order setting aside or suspending the proceedings dated 01.07.2021, the appellant ought to have been permitted to continue performing poojas in the subject temple.

WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026

4. It was further contended that Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the HR & CE Act”), which deals with the appointment of trustees, could not be mechanically applied to the appointment of poosaris, particularly in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1972) 2 SCC 11. The learned counsel also pointed out that Kaliyappan, the father of the third respondent, had not challenged the rejection of his request for recognition as poosari by proceedings dated 22.03.2017. The learned counsel also relied upon the order dated 28.11.2013 passed in O.A. No.9 of 2001, whereby the rights of thirteen applicants to perform poojas and receive customary honours were stated to have been recognised. According to the learned counsel, the said order had attained finality, and its legal effect, together with the appellant's claim through his father, M.Periyan, ought to have been considered. It was further submitted that the earlier writ proceedings related to the appointment of V.Ganesan, whereas the appellant's appointment under the independent proceedings dated 01.07.2021 was challenged subsequently.

WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026

5. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant had resigned from his temporary employment in TASMAC and that the criminal case registered against him had been closed by the police as a mistake of fact. In such circumstances, it was contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have permitted V.Ganesan to perform poojas as poosari pending adjudication of the rival claims, particularly when the appellant's appointment had not been set aside. The learned counsel accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside insofar as it prejudiced the appellant and that he be permitted to continue performing poojas pending disposal of the proceedings before the competent authority.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the appellant had been appointed as poosari only on a temporary basis under the proceedings dated 01.07.2021. Subsequently, pursuant to the proceedings dated 13.03.2026, the third respondent had also been appointed as a temporary poosari. It was contended that the said proceedings had not been challenged by the appellant and therefore, the appellant could not seek continuation solely on the strength of his earlier temporary appointment.

WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026

7. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the proceedings dated 13.03.2026 provided for the appointment of several poosaris, including V. Ganesan, and that the appellant was not required to challenge the said proceedings merely because the third respondent relied upon them. The learned counsel reiterated that Section 54 of the HR & CE Act, dealing with trusteeship, is not applicable to the appointment of poosaris.

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the third respondent and perused the materials available on record.

9. The question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant, who was appointed as poosari on a temporary basis pursuant to the proceedings dated 01.07.2021, is entitled to seek continuation in the said position in the light of the subsequent proceedings dated 13.03.2026, which have not been challenged by him.

10. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as poosari on a temporary basis by proceedings dated 01.07.2021. The nature of the appointment, as reflected in the said proceedings, is therefore a relevant consideration in determining whether the appellant can claim a

WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026 continuing right to perform poojas solely on the basis of that appointment. It is also an admitted position that, pursuant to the application made by the third respondent, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 13.03.2026 appointing the third respondent as poosari on a temporary basis. The said proceedings have not been challenged by the appellant. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot seek a direction for continuation in the position without addressing the legal effect of the subsequent proceedings and without pursuing the appropriate remedy available to him in respect thereof. The contention that the proceedings dated 13.03.2026 appointed several poosaris, including V. Ganesan, does not, by itself, establish an enforceable right in favour of the appellant to continue under the earlier temporary appointment. The appellant's claim has to be considered in the context of the relevant proceedings and the remedies available under law.

11. The appellant has also raised contentions concerning the applicability of Section 54 of the HR & CE Act, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, the order dated 28.11.2013 in O.A. No.9 of 2001, and the rival claims relating to the performance of poojas and customary honours. However, having regard to the limited issue arising for consideration in this appeal and the

WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026 subsequent proceedings dated 13.03.2026, it is not necessary to render any conclusive finding on those contentions in the present appeal. The same are left open to be urged before the competent authority or the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. Insofar as the appellant seeks to assert a right to continue as poosari on the strength of the proceedings dated 01.07.2021, we find that the said proceedings contemplated only a temporary appointment. In the light of the subsequent proceedings dated 13.03.2026, which remain unchallenged, the appellant has not made out sufficient grounds for granting the relief sought in this Writ Appeal.

12. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated 16.10.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.29945 of 2026. The impugned order, therefore, warrants no interference in this appeal.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed with liberty to the appellant to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (P.V.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.) 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026 bala To

1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Cotton Market Building, Palladam Road, Thiruppur.

2. The Fit Person/Thakkar, Arulmighu Parayan Karuppasamy Thirukovil, Sukkampati, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District.

WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026 P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. bala WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026 27-10-2026