K.Praveen Kumar v. The CommissionerHind Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
1/6WP No. 31037 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESHWP No. 31037 of 2025and WMP No. 34779 of 2025K.Praveen KumarPetitioner(s)Vs1. The CommissionerHind Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakka, Chennai 600 0342.The Joint CommissionerCoimbatore Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Commercial Tax Office Complex, Dr. Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore 641 0183.The Inspector of PoliceVadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore District4.R. Muthusamy5.K.C. Krishnaraj6.P. Marudhchalam https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6WP No. 31037 of 20257.L. N Ganesan8.S. Suresh KumarRespondent(s)PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st to 3rd respondents to take appropriate action against 5th to 8th Respondents for obstructing the petitioner from rendering service as a Poojari in Arulmigu Karupparayan and Mariamman Temple, Linganoor, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District.
For Petitioner(s):Mr.P.A.Sai GovindarajaFor Respondent(s):Mr.N.R.R.Arun NatarajanSpecial Government Pleaderfor R1 and R2Mr.V.MeganathanGovernment Advocate for R3 ORDERThis writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against respondents 5 to 8 who are obstructing the petitioner from rendering the service as a Poojari in Arulmigu Karupparayan and Mariamman Temple, Linganoor, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6WP No. 31037 of 20252.Heard Mr.P.A.Sai Govindaraja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.3.It is seen from records that the 8th respondent was claiming to be the hereditary Poojari and his claim came to be rejected and the petitioner came to be appointed as the Poojari of the temple through proceedings dated 10.02.2025.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the petitioner being appointed as the Poojari, respondents 5 to 7 are obstructing the petitioner from performing the function of the Poojari in support of the 8th respondent. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 4. In the considered view of this Court, once the petitioner has been appointed as the Poojari, he cannot be prevented from performing that function. If anyone is aggrieved, they can only challenge the proceedings and they cannot https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6WP No. 31037 of 2025physically prevent the petitioner from performing the functioning as Poojari. The petitioner is not able to perform the function from February 2025 onwards. 5. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to ensure that the petitioner is permitted to do the function of the Poojari in the temple and if any obstruction is made by the private respondent, the 3rd respondent is directed to provide necessary protection and to take action against the concerned persons.
Operative part
6. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.18-08-2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: YesNeutral Citation: Yes/Nossr https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6WP No. 31037 of 2025To1. The CommissionerHind Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakka, Chennai 600 0342.The Joint CommissionerCoimbatore Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Commercial Tax Office Complex, Dr. Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore 641 0183.The Inspector of PoliceVadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore District https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6WP No. 31037 of 2025N.ANAND VENKATESH J.ssrWP No. 31037 of 2025 18-08-2025
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.