High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 2025Patteswaram Post,Kumbakonam,Thanjavur District.4. Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam,Thiruvavaduthurai,Rep. by its Adheenakarthar,Sri-La-Sri Ambalavana Pandara Sannathi,Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam,Thiruvavaduthurai.Mayiladuthurai District. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.1560423/2025/S2, dated 07.07.2025, quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to restore the custodial rights, keys, and official recognition of the petitioner as the Adheenakarthar of Shri Sivakarayogi Swami Madam, Suriyanarkovil Aadheenam, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District.For Petitioner: Mr. V.R.Shanmuganathan for Mr.P.VetrivelFor Respondents: Mr.S.S.Madhavan Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.V.ChandrasekarStanding Counsel for R3 Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore for R4***** 2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 2025ORDERThis Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent, and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent.2. The petitioner, Mahalinga Pandara Sanithi, was appointed as the 28th Aadheenakarthar of Shri Suriyanarkovil Aadheenam, located at Suriyanarkovil, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District, on 03.01.2022.3. While discharging his duties as Aadheenakarthar, the petitioner contracted a marriage on 10.10.2024 at Ramanagara, Karnataka, and returned on 12.11.2024. This act led to public unrest, as it was perceived to be contrary to the customs of the Shri Suriyanarkovil Aadheenam, where it is considered inappropriate for an Aadheenakarthar to marry.4. In light of the above, the petitioner voluntarily handed over the keys of the Aadheenam to the HR & CE Department on 12.11.2024. On the same day, a fit person was appointed, and the Aadheenam has since been under the control of 3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 2025the said fit person appointed by the Department.5. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.10877 of 2025, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 (the respondents 1 and 2 herein) to instruct the third respondent (the third respondent herein) to return the keys of Shri Sivakarayogi Swami Madam, Shri Suriyanarkovil Aadheenam, situated at Suriyanarkovil, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District, pursuant to his representation dated 13.03.2025. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 22.04.2025, with the following observations:- “5. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time. 6. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 13.03.2025, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the third respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed 4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 2025any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the first respondent to consider the same on its own merits. 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”6. Thus, the Commissioner/first respondent herein was directed to pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid representation, dated 13.03.2025 of the Aadheenakarthar [the petitioner herein]. Meanwhile, the fourth respondent herein claims that the fourth respondent, in turn, had appointed one Shri-la-Shri Subramania Pandara Sanithi as Aadheenakarthar. He had approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13669 of 2025 to hand over the keys to the Aadheenakarthar appointed by them for performance of Gurupooja by 11.05.2025, by considering the representations, dated 17.11.2024 and 17.04.2025 of the fourth respondent herein (first petitioner therein). By an order, dated 30.04.2025 i.e., within six days, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, by directing the Joint Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai, to pass appropriate orders. Relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-“5. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 17.11.2024 and 17.04.2025, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after 5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 2025giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the second respondent to consider the same on its own merits.6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”7. It is in this background that the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent/Commissioner, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1560423/2025-S2, dated 07.07.2025. In view of differing opinions regarding the competent authority to issue such an order, the Joint Commissioner, in his proceedings dated 07.07.2025, opined that the order may be passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the impugned order was issued. Relevant portion of the said order is extracted below:-“];uPy];uP kfhypq;f gz;lhu rd;djp mtu;fs; Jwtwj;ij Jwe;J jpUkzk; nra;J nfhz;L> vt;tpj jftYk; Kiwahf njuptpf;fhky; klj;;ijtpl;L ntspNawp jd; flikapypUe;J jtwpAs;shu;. NkYk;> kDjhuu; ];uPy];uP kfhypq;f gz;lhu rd;djp mtu;fs; mwepiya rl;lg;gpupT 59(h)-f;F Kuzhf nray;gl;L klj;jpd; ew;ngaUf;F fsq;fk; Vw;gLj;jpAs;shu;. vdNt> mtu; klhjpgjpahf nrayhw;wpl jFjpaw;wtu; Mfpwhu;. mtuJ jftpd;ik ePf;fwT 6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 2025nra;ag;gl;lhy; kl;LNk mtu; klhjpgjpf;Fupa flikfis nra;jpl ,aYk; vdNt Nkw;fhZk; klj;jpd; rhtp kw;Wk; nghWg;Gfis mtuplk; jw;Nghijf;F xg;gilf;f toptifapy;iy vd;gjhy;> mtuJ Nfhupf;ifapid epuhfupj;J cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ. 9) ,e;J rka mwepiyar; rl;lg;gpupT 59-y; njuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s topKiwfspd;gb Mjpdf;fu;j;jiu gjtpePf;fk; nra;ag;gl;l gpd;dNu> Gjpa Mjpdfu;j;jiu epakpf;f KbAk;. vdNt> jpUklj;jpd; epu;thf eyd; fUjp mwepiya rl;lg;gpupT 60-y; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;s mjpfhuj;jpd;gb ,j;Jiwapd; Fk;gNfhzk; ruf cjtp Mizau; jdJ nr.K.ef. 889/2024/m4 ehs; 12.11.2024 vd;w Mizapd; %yk; Fk;gNfhzk; tl;lk;> gl;B];tuk;> mUs;kpF NjDGuP];tuRthkp jpUf;Nfhapypd; nray; mYtyiu> klj;jpd; nghWg;G mYtyuhf epakpj;Js;shu;. ,e;epiyapy;> R+upadhu;Nfhapy; rpthf;fpuf Nahfpfs; klj;jpd; epu;thfk;> R+upadhu;Nfhapy; rpthf;fpuf Nahfpfs; klj;jpd; fhty;> rhtp kw;Wk; nghWg;Gfis ];uP-y-];uP Rg;gpukzpa gz;lhu re;epjpaplk; cldbahf xg;gilf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;w jpUthtLJiw Mjpdj;jpd; Nfhupf;if epuhfupf;fg;gLfpwJ.10) Nkw;fhZk; ];uPy];uP kfhypq;f gz;lhu rd;djp mtu;fs; klj;jpid ruptu epu;thfk; nra;atpy;iy vd;gJ cs;spl;l gy;NtW Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; nghJ kf;fshy; Rkj;jg;gl;Ls;sjhf jpUthtLJiw Mjpdj;jhy; njuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. ];uPy];uP kfhypq;f gz;lhu rd;djp mtu;fis rl;l eilKiwfs; %ykhf kl;LNk Mjpdfu;j;ju; gjtpapypUe;J KOikahf ePf;fk; nra;a ,aYk;> mjd;gb mtiu gjtp ePf;fk; nra;a mwepiya rl;ltpjpfspd;gb Mizau; mDkjp ngw;W cupa ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tof;F jhf;fy; nra;J> cj;jpuT ngw Ntz;Lk; vdNt Njitnadpy; Mizaupd; mDkjp ngw rl;lg;gpupT 59-d; fPo; Kiwahf kD jhf;fy; nra;J ];uPy];uP kfhypq;f gz;lhu rd;djp mtu;fis gjtp ePf;fk; nra;a eltbf;if Nkw;nfhs;syhk; jpUthtLJiw Mjpdj;jpw;F njuptpj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ. 7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 2025 Nkw;fhZk; R+upayhu;Nfhapy;> rpthf;fpuf Nahfpfs; klj;jpd; gof;f tof;fq;fSf;Fl;gl;L G+i[fis Nkw;nfhs;sTk; kw;Wk; rl;lg;gb epu;thfj;jpid ftdpj;JtUkhWk; nghWg;G mYtyUf;F cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.”8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power to disqualify a Madathipathi/Aadheenakarthar of a Mutt or a specific endowment under Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, vests exclusively with the competent Court.9. It is contended that the Commissioner has no authority to disqualify the petitioner, namely, Mahalingam, who identifies himself as Shri-la-Shri Mahalinga Pandara Sanithi.10. The counsel further submits that, at best, the Commissioner/first respondent may institute a suit before a competent Court seeking a decree for removal of the petitioner on any of the statutory grounds.11. It is submitted that the mere fact that the petitioner contracted a marriage on 10.10.2024 does not, ipso facto, establish that he was leading an immoral life.8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 202512. The learned counsel submits that, in any event, it is for the concerned Court to arrive at such a conclusion, and not the Commissioner, who lacks the authority to disqualify a Madathipathi/Aadheenakarthar.13. It is further submitted that there are several Mutts with married Madathipathis/Aadheenakarthars, and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable even on that ground.14. It is submitted that until the appointment of the petitioner as Madathipathi is legally set aside in the manner prescribed under Section 59 of the Act, he cannot be deprived of his privileges as Aadheenakarthar. It is contended that only upon a vacancy arising can Section 60 of the Act be invoked.15. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 1 and 2 refers to paragraph 6 onwards of the impugned order and submits that the petitioner not only contracted marriage on 10.10.2024, but also publicly defended his actions through statements given to newspapers and news 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 2025channels, thereby, bringing disrepute to the fourth respondent/Thiruvavaduthurai Aadheenam.16. It is further submitted that by contracting the marriage, the petitioner had, by conduct, forfeited his right to continue as Aadheenakarthar of Shri Sivakarayogi Swami Madam, Shri Suriyanar Kovil Aadheenam.17. It is also submitted that the title “Shri-la-Shri Mahalinga Pandara Sanithi” was conferred upon the petitioner following the demise of the previous Aadheenakarthar on 03.01.2022.18. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent/Thiruvavaduthurai Aadheenam submits that due to the marriage contracted by the petitioner, essential religious ceremonies could not be performed, necessitating the appointment of Shri-la-Shri Subramania Pandara Sanithi as the 29th Aadheenakarthar. The impugned order records the subsequent appointment.10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 202519. It is submitted that for the above reasons, the petitioner is unfit to continue as Aadheenakarthar of Shri Sivakarayogi Swami Madam, Shri Suriyanar Kovil Aadheenam.20. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submits that upon the petitioner handing over the keys on 12.11.2024, a fit person was appointed, who is currently in control of the Aadheenam. All ceremonies are now being conducted under the supervision of the third respondent in his capacity as fit person.21. It is further submitted that, in view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to reclaim possession of the keys or resume conduct of ceremonies at the Aadheenam.22. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent, however, submits that he is uncertain whether a new Aadheenakarthar was formally appointed by the Aadheenam and whether Shri-la-Shri Subramania Pandara Sanithi continues to hold that office.11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 202523. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent, and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner/first respondent, declining the request of the petitioner for the keys and consequential control over the Aadheenam, cannot be interfered with, particularly, in the light of the fact that a civil suit has already been instituted by the petitioner in O.S.No.255 of 2024 before the Sub Court, Kumbakonam, seeking the following relief:-m) tof;fpilr;nrhj;jhd jhk;Gu nrg;G gl;ilak; thjpf;F KOikahf ghj;jpag;gl;lJ (absolutely belonged to Plaintiff) vd;W tpsk;Gif nra;J> thjptrk; xg;gilf;f cj;jputpl;Lk; mjd;gpd;GM) jpUtde;jy; c\hfhy fl;lisG+ir elj;Jtjw;F thjpf;Fjhd; KO cupikaps;sJ vd;W tpsk;Gif nra;J> 1tJ gpujpthjpf;F vjpuhf epue;ju jilcj;jpuT toq;fpAk;>,) thjpf;F> jhk;Gu rhjd gl;ila nrhj;Jtpguq;fs; mlq;fpa> tUtha; Mtzq;fs; midj;ijAk; 1tJ gpujpthjp nfhLf;f cj;jputpl;Lk; kw;Wk;<) thjpapd; tof;F nryT njhifia 1tJ gpujpthjp jpUg;gp toq;f cj;jputpl;Lk;> c) tof;fpd; jd;ikfis mDrupj;J khz;gik ePjpkd;wk; crpjk; vdf; fUJk; ,d;d gpw gupfhuq;fis 12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 2025toq;fp cj;jpuNtz;L khWk;> ePjpapd; nghUl;L Nfl;Lf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.24. The petitioner has admittedly abdicated his role as Aadheenakarthar of Shri Sivakarayogi Swami Madam, Shri Suriyanar Kovil Aadheenam, following his marriage contracted on 10.10.2024 in Karnataka. Upon his return, facing several objections, he voluntarily handed over the keys of the Aadheenam to the HR & CE Department. Although the fourth respondent/Thiruvavaduthurai Aadheenam intended to appoint Shri-la-Shri Subramania Pandara Sanithi as the 28th Aadheenakarthar, a fit person was appointed on 12.11.2024. Significantly, this appointment has not been challenged either by the petitioner or by the fourth respondent.25. As long as the said order appointing a fit person remains in force, neither the petitioner nor the fourth respondent, both of whom are now pursuing remedies before the Civil Court in O.S.No.255 of 2024 can claim any independent right over the Aadheenam. However, it is not appropriate for the third respondent to continue as fit person for an indefinite period. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Commissioner/first respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 20251959, particularly, in view of the rejection of the petitioner's request for restoration of possession and control of the Aadheenam.26. In the light of the above, while dismissing this Writ Petition, this Court directs the Commissioner/first respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 59 of the TN HR & CE Act, 1959. The impugned order rejecting the request for handing over the keys stands upheld, subject to the further directions herein.27. Accordingly, a suit shall be instituted by the official respondents 1 and 2 before the competent Civil Court, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.28. The rights of the petitioner to assume control of Shri Sivakarayogi Swami Madam, Shri Suriyanar Kovil Aadheenam shall be subject to the judgment and decree to be passed by the Civil Court in terms of Section 59 of the Act, provided such proceedings are initiated within the stipulated period.14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 202529. In the event no such suit is instituted by the Commissioner/first respondent within the said time frame, the petitioner’s rights shall thereafter be governed by the outcome of the suit already instituted by him in O.S.No.255 of 2024, or otherwise in accordance with law.30. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's personal belongings are lying within the Aadheenam premises and seeks permission to retrieve them.31. The said request is found to be reasonable. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to make a written request to the Commissioner/first respondent, who shall consider the same and permit the petitioner to take his personal belongings from the Aadheenam premises, in the presence of officials of the HR & CE Department.32. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations and directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Index :Yes / No05.08.2025Internet:Yes / Noapd15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 2025To1. The Commissioner,Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,Uthamar Gandhi Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai..2. The Assistant Commissioner,O/o the Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,1, Aayikualam Road,Kumbakonam,Thanajavur District.16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 202517/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 2025C.SARAVANAN, J. apd / smn2W.P.(MD) No. 21264 of 202505.08.202518/18