Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 20165.Sri Thathadesika Thiruvamsasthar Sabha, rep. by its Secretary 6.Shri.T.E.Srinivasan7.Shri.K.P.Viswanath 8.Shri. T.V.Singarachari (deceased) 9.K.B.Srinivasan (R9 substituted in the place of deceased R8 vide order dated 04.1.2023 in WMP.No.19255 of 2021 by NSKJ]10.Sudharsan PBV (R10 impleaded vide order dated 19.8.2025 in WMP.No.26880 of 2025 by NAVJ)...Respondents WP.No.9114 of 2016 :T.E.Srinivasan…Petitioner Vs1.The Secretary to Government Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Commissioner, HR & CE, Department, Chennai-34.3.The Assistant Commissioner/ Executive Trustee, Arulmighu 2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 2016 Devarajaswamy Temple, Kancheepuram-631501.4.Perumalkoil Thennacharya Dharsana Sabha, rep. by its Secretary T.A.P.Srirangachari, 5.Sri Thathadesika Thiruvamsasthar Sabha, rep. by its Secretary 6.Vadakalai Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya Sabha Rep. by its Secretary7.Shri.K.P.Viswanath 8.Shri. T.V.Singarachari (deceased) 9.K.B.Srinivasan (R9 substituted in the place of deceased R8 vide order dated 04.1.2023 in WMP.No.19259 of 2021 by NSKJ]...RespondentsPETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of (i) a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the case relating to the impugned Government Order No.159 of 2015 dated 07.7.2015 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to remove the Adhishesan 3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 2016embossed at the middle of Sangu and Chakkaram in the Silver Kavacham fixed in the Kulasekarapadi at Sanctum Sanctorum of Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Kanchipuram (WP.No.9113 of 2016); (ii) a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the case relating to the impugned Government Order No.161 of 2015 dated 07.7.2015 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to remove the Adhishesan embossed at the middle of Sangu and Chakkaram in the Silver Kavacham fixed in the Kulasekarapadi at Sanctum Sanctorum of Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Kanchipuram (WP.No.9114 of 2016).For Petitioner inWP.No.9113 of 2016 &R6 inWP.No.9114 of 2016 :Mr.S.Parthasarathy, SC forMr.K.A.VimalkumarFor Petitioner inWP.No.9114 of 2016 &R6 in WP.No.9113 of 2016:Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, SC forMr.P.Dinesh KumarFor R1 & R2 inboth WPs:Mr.K.Karthikeyan, GAFor R3 in both WPs:Mr.R.Bharanidharan4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 2016For R4 in both WPs:Mrs.Hema Sampath, SC forMrs.R.MeenalFor R5 in both WPs:Mr.Sathish Parasaran, SC forMr.S.Abhinav ParthasarathyR7 in both WPs: served and no appearanceR8 in both WPs: diedFor R9 in both WPs:Mr.K.V.AnanthakrushnanFor R10 in WP.No.9113 of 2016/newly impleaded party:Mr.A.K.Sriram, SC forMr.G.VivekanandCOMMON ORDERBoth these writ petitions have been filed challenging the respective Government Order in G.O.Ms.Nos.159 and 161 dated 07.7.2015 passed by the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to remove the Adhiseshan embossed at the middle of Sangu and Chakkaram in the silver kavacham fixed in the Kulasekarapadi at Sanctum Sanctorum of Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Kanchipuram.2. Heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 20163. The case of the petitioners is as follows :(i) Sri Devarajaswami Temple at Kanchipuram is a Vadagalai Temple in character. The main deity of the Temple namely Lord Varadhar is adorned with Vadagalai Namam. All the other important deities of Gods enshrined in the Temple are also adorned with the Vadagalai Namam. The first Thirtakars and the Archaka Paricharakas, who officiate in the poojas, belong to the Vadagalai Sect. Every other identity in the Temple is carved/embossed with the Vadgalai Namam. (ii) The sanctum sanctorum of the main deity is led from the Kulasekarapadi. The Vadagalai Namam is carved on the stone of the Kulasekarapadi. A silver kavacham for the Kulasekarapadi at the Sanctum Sanctorum was donated by the seventh respondent and it was fixed on 25.8.2011 where it was found that the silver kavacham was bearing a Nagam (snake) in between the Sangu and the Chakkaram. It also covered the Vadagalai Namam, which was already there in the stone carving between the Sangu and the Chakkaram. When this mistake was pointed out, the donor himself gave a silver plate to the Sthapathi, who made the silver kavacham and affixed the Vadagalai Namam in the silver kavacham. 6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 2016(iii) All of a sudden, the silver kavacham was removed by the second respondent and this unauthorized removal was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.9114 of 2016 by filing W.P.No.20468 of 2011 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.9.2011 with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the representations to be filed by the parties under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short, the Act). Later, the representations that were filed were converted into revision petitions and were numbered as R.P.Nos.94 and 95 of 2011 where the petitioners herein sought for restoration of the silver kavacham with the Vadagalai Namam. In those revision petitions, the seventh respondent filed a counter. (iv) Ultimately, the second respondent passed the order dated 20.4.2012 wherein a direction was given to the third respondent to refix the kavacham with the Nagam embossed in between the Sangu and the Chakkaram. Aggrieved by that, two review petitions were filed by the petitioners before the first respondent. Pursuant to that, the first respondent passed the impugned orders dated 07.7.2015 dismissing the review petitions. As against the same, both the writ petitions have been filed before this Court. 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 20164. The third respondent filed a common counter in both the writ petitions. Further, the ninth respondent also filed two separate counters along with a typed set of papers.5. The main grounds that were urged on the side of the petitioners are as follows :The Temple in question is a Vadagalai Temple with the Vadagalai Namam embossed all over the Temple. That apart, even the Kulasekarapadi has a Vadagalai Namam between the Sangu and the Chakkaram. When the silver kavacham was made, the Nagam was embossed in between the Sangu and the Chakkaram by hiding the already existing Vadagalai Namam at the center of the stone carving. This silver kavacham is in front of the sanctum sanctorum of the Moolavar and it should have had the Vadagalai Namam in the center between the Sangu and the Chakkaram. However, there is a Nagam embossed in between the Sangu and the Chakkaram and when the same was pointed out, the donor was prepared to remove the same. However, respondents 1 and 2 overlooked the religious belief and also the offer made by the donor. Hence, the orders passed by the second 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 2016respondent as confirmed by the first respondent require the interference of this Court.6. Per contra, the respective learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted as follows :The donor has no right to insist the choice of donation. The donor donated the silver kavacham without any Namam embossed in between the Sangu and the Chakkaram. Taking advantage of the initial removal of the silver kavacham, the Vadagalai Namam was painted in it. The silver kavacham must be continued as it is since it does not have any Namam either Vadagalai or Thengalai. The decision taken by the official respondents in this regard does not require the interference of this Court. 7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned Government Orders.8. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the silver kavacham was installed only after obtaining necessary permission from 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 2016the second respondent through the proceedings dated 25.8.2011. Though this Court wanted to scrutinize the permission granted, the records were not available and an affidavit has been filed by the third respondent stating that despite taking best efforts, the file that was misplaced was not able to be traced. Even though the records were not available, there is no dispute on both sides that such permission was, in fact, granted by the second respondent.9. The ticklish and sensitive issue regarding the Vadagalai/ Thengalai Namam is a never ending problem. Fortunately, in the present case, this Court is not dealing with this issue. The only issue, which is the subject matter of these writ petitions, is as to whether there was a Vadagalai Namam in between the Sangu and the Chakkaram in the already existing stone carved Kulasekarapadi. The entire controversy had arisen after the donor decided to donate the silver kavacham covering the existing stone carved Kulasekarapadi. 10. It was contended that the silver kavacham originally had the Vadagalai Namam, that thereafter, it was removed, that once again when the silver kavacham was fixed, it had Adhiseshan in between the 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 2016Sangu and the Chakkaram. The petitioners want the Nagam to be replaced with the Vadagalai Namam. 11. The second respondent, who dealt with the issue, came to the conclusion that embossing the Namam in the silver kavacham would create unnecessary problems and therefore, it was directed continuation of the Nagam in between the Sangu and the Chakkaram. 12. Vide the impugned Government Orders, the first respondent confirmed the order passed by the second respondent and came to the conclusion that embossing the Namam would create a controversy, that such controversy should not arise when a donation is given and that therefore, the silver kavacham could continue with the Nagam in between the Sangu and the Chakkaram. 13. This Court, while issuing a Writ of Certiorari, must keep in mind that it is not exercising the appellate jurisdiction and that the Court does not substitute its views to the views taken by the Authorities below. There must be an error apparent on the face of the records for interference. It can also be an error of jurisdiction where 11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 2016the Authority has failed to exercise its jurisdiction or had exercised excess jurisdiction or had exercised a jurisdiction that is not available. Only a patent error can be corrected and not a wrong decision. An error of facts gets elevated to an error of law only where the finding of facts is based on no evidence or such a finding has been given purely on surmises and conjectures or the finding must be perverse. 14. The entire law on this issue was enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ayurvedic Sciences & Others Vs. Bikartan Das & Others [reported in 2023 (5) MLJ 289].15. This Court, while exercising its discretion under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, cannot get into the disputed questions of fact. The petitioners are claiming that the Vadagalai Namam was already available in the existing stone carved Kulasekarapadi in between the Sangu and the Chakkaram before the silver kavacham covered the Kulasekarapadi. 16. On the other hand, the private respondents are claiming that after the removal of the silver kavacham in the first instance, it was 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 2016intentionally painted in the silver kavacham to show as if such a Vadagalai Namam was already there. Presently, the Kulasekarapadi is covered by silver kavacham and in order to avoid any controversy, the Adhiseshan (Nagam) is found in between the Sangu and the Chakkaram. This decision taken by respondents 1 and 2 does not suffer from any illegality warranting the interference of this Court. Such a decision is taken to avoid any further controversy. This is not a fit case where this Court will exercise its discretion under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. 17. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.19.8.2025To1.The Secretary to Government Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Commissioner, HR & CE, Department, Chennai-34.13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 20163.The Assistant Commissioner/ Executive Trustee, Arulmighu Devarajaswamy Temple, Kancheepuram-631501.RS14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.9113 & 9114 of 2016N.ANAND VENKATESH,JRS WP.Nos.9113 & 9114 of201619.8.202515/15