P. Thiruvel vs The Joint Commissioner
- Court
- Madras High Court
WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011529652026}
and CMP(MD)Nos.14634 & 14635 of 2026
P. Thiruvel
..Appellant
Vs
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.
3. K.Yogaraj
..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against
the order made in W.P.(MD) No. 29945 of 2026 dated 16.10.2026.
For Appellant : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Udhayakumar
Government Advocate for R1
Mr.P.Athimoolapandian for R2
Mr.R.Rajeshkumar for R3
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:41 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1699 of 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.
__________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:41 pm )
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.
__________
Page 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:41 pm )
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.
__________
Page 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:41 pm )
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
__________
Page 5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:41 pm )
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
__________
Page 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:41 pm )
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
__________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:41 pm )
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.
__________
Page 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:41 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
bala
WA(MD) No. 1699 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:41 pm )