SENTHILKUMAR GANAPATHI vs THE COMMISSIONER

WP No. 39182 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
WP No. 39182 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012309692026}
And
W.M.P.Nos.43989 and 47137 of 2026
Senthilkumar Ganapathi
8/76 A, Katthamalai Thottam,
Valayappatti Village, Kalkurchi (PO),
Sendamangalam Taluk,
Namakkal - 637 402.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai- 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Erode.
3. The Executive Officer
Arulmigu Atthanur Amman
Thirukkovil, Atthanur, Ayipalayam,
Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.
4. The Fit Person
Arulmigu Atthanur Amman
Thirukkovil, Atthanur,Ayipalayam,
Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.
5. A.K.Saravanan
S/o.Kailasam,
Residing at Door No./ 15/13, Kattu Kottai,
A.Ayeepalayam, Rasipuram Taluk,
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )

WP No. 39182 of 2026
Namakkal District- 636 301.
6. R.Rajkumar
S/o.Ramasamy,
Residing at Door No. 4/110, Arunkombai
Veethi,
Mettupalayam, Tirupur- 641 602.
7. A.Karunakaran
S/o.Arumugam,
Residing at Door No.13/134,A. Ayeepalayam,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District- 636 301.
8. Y.Rajasekar
S/o.Yogesan
Residing at Door No.13/138,A Ayeepalayam,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District- 636 301.
9. R.Nagarajan
S/o.Rathinasamy,
Residing at Door No.1/46 A. Ayeepalayam,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District- 636 301.
10.R.Venkatachalam
S/o.Ramasamy,
Residing at Door No.11/ 111, Mariamman
Kovil Street,
Athanur Post, Rasipuram,
Namakkal District- 636 301.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to
the order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the second respondent in O.A.No.4 of
2025 and quashing the same.
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )

WP No. 39182 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Srinivasan
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4
Mr.P.M.Subramaniam,
Senior Advocate
for Mr.P.Muthusamy for R5 to R9
Mr.B.Jawahar for R10
Order
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2026 passed by
the Regional Joint Commissioner, Erode, in O.A.No.4 of 2025. The application
was filed by six persons belonging to two communities under Section 63(e) of
the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), claiming entitlement to honours
throughout the day at Arulmigu Athanur Amman Temple, Ayipalayam,
Athanur, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, during the Pongal festival held
on a Friday in the Tamil month of Aippasi. Their claim is based on the stated
tradition whereby members of the Kongu Vellala community residing in the
villages collectively referred to as ‘Ettupatti’, namely, Athanur Ayipalayam,
Athanur, Athanur Pudur, Alangattu Pudur, Thattankuttai Pudur and Uduppathan
Pudur, proceed to the temple carrying ‘Mavilakku’ (lamp-shaped offerings
made of rice flour and jaggery), accompanied by traditional music. They follow
the cart of the Sengunthar Mudaliar community from the local Vinayagar
temple, with their own carts carrying participants in various costumes following
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )

WP No. 39182 of 2026
them. The six applicants in O.A.No.4 of 2025 are respondents 5 to 10 herein.
2. According to the applicants before the Regional Joint
Commissioner, Erode, they belong to the Kongu Vellala Gounder community of
the Ettupatti villages and the Sengunthar Mudaliar community of Athanur
village. They claim to have been performing the rituals associated with the
Pongal festival of Athanur Amman Temple during the Tamil month of Aippasi,
with the entire expenditure for those rituals being borne by members of the
Kongu Vellala Gounder community. A copy of the application was affixed at
the temple and at the Village Administrative Office. An enquiry was thereafter
conducted. Four witnesses, including two of the applicants, were examined, and
Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. The report of the Executive Officer was also filed
and considered. The Regional Joint Commissioner sought a report from the
Rasipuram Range Inspector, who submitted his report in Na.Ka.No.15/2025
dated 28.05.2025. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the
Regional Joint Commissioner found that members of the Kongu Vellala
Gounder community from the six villages collectively known as ‘Ettupatti’ and
members of the Sengunthar Mudaliar community of Athanur village were
entitled to continue performing their respective rituals and customs during the
Aippasi Pongal festival. The order further provided that, after the conclusion of
the pooja, ‘Vibuthi’ should first be offered to members of the Kongu Vellala
Gounder community from the six villages, followed by the person belonging to
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )

WP No. 39182 of 2026
the Athanur Sengunthar Mudaliar community dressed as ‘Rajapathar’, thereby
continuing the honours and customs observed at the temple on that day. The
order was passed on 08.05.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the
present writ petition on 23.09.2026.
3. The writ petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed ex
parte and that none of the members of his community was impleaded in the
application filed by respondents 5 to 10. According to him, in view of the
longstanding dispute and pending court proceedings, the Regional Joint
Commissioner, Erode, ought to have summoned members of his community suo
motu to participate in the enquiry. He further contends that no custom of
offering the first and second ‘Vibuthi’ honor to particular communities was
followed during the Pongal festival and that there are no documents or
inscriptions at the temple substantiating such a custom.
4. The petitioner further contends that the procedure prescribed for
considering an application under Section 63 of the Act was not followed. Once
it was brought to the notice of the Regional Joint Commissioner, Erode, that the
temple deity is the kula deivam (family deity) of the petitioner’s community,
members of that community ought to have been summoned before the enquiry
proceeded. It is also contended that the reports of the Executive Officer and the
Rasipuram Range Inspector are contradictory. While the Executive Officer’s
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )

WP No. 39182 of 2026
report does not refer to any custom of offering the first and second ‘Vibuthi’ to
particular communities, the Range Inspector’s report states that such a custom
must be followed.
5. The application was filed under Section 63(e) of the Act, which
reads as follows:
“63. Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to decide
certain disputes and matters.—Subject to the rights of suit or
appeal hereinafter provided, the Joint Commissioner or the
Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have power
to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters:
—
...
(e) whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to
any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious
institution; and what the established usage of a religious
institution is in regard to any other matter;”
6. Though caste-based discrimination cannot be permitted, Section
63(e) of the Act empowers the competent authority to enquire into a claim to
customary honours and established usage in a religious institution.
7. The power to determine a customary honour does not, by itself,
establish the validity of the claim. The existence of the custom and the legality
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )

WP No. 39182 of 2026
of the honour claimed are distinct questions. Any determination under Section
63(e) must conform to the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-
discrimination; the mere assertion of antiquity cannot validate an otherwise
impermissible discriminatory practice.
8. An order passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner under Section
63(e) of the Act is appealable to the Commissioner under Section 69. The Act
also provides for a statutory suit under Section 70 against the Commissioner’s
order in matters falling within that provision.
9. The petitioner’s principal grievance is that the principles of natural
justice were not followed. He contends that, although the temple deity is the
kula deivam of his community, neither he nor the other members of his
community were given notice of the proceedings. On that basis, he has directly
approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Section 63(e) of the Act enables the competent authority to
determine claims to honours and established usage in a religious institution. The
existence and scope of the alleged custom are matters to be examined on the
evidence placed before that authority, subject to the statutory remedies provided
under the Act.
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )

WP No. 39182 of 2026
11. It is submitted that the temple is about 700 years old and is a public
place of worship. Its administration was taken over by the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Department several years ago. The temple festival is
ongoing and is scheduled to conclude on 30.10.2026. The petitioner’s grievance
is that, although the poojas and rituals are performed traditionally during the
first nine days, the first and second ‘Vibuthi’ honours on the tenth day are
accorded exclusively to particular communities.
12. The Regional Joint Commissioner conducted an enquiry into the
application filed by respondents 5 to 10 under Section 63(e) of the Act. Upon
examining the witnesses and considering the documents on record, he
concluded that the two communities were entitled to the first and second
‘Vibuthi’ honours.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the
petitioner and the members of his community were not put on notice, the
impugned order is an ex parte order and cannot be sustained, particularly in
view of the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice.
14. The availability of a statutory appeal is not an absolute bar to the
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. A violation of the principles of
natural justice is a recognised exception to the rule of alternative remedy. The
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )

WP No. 39182 of 2026
petitioner’s objection therefore requires consideration and cannot be rejected
merely because an appeal is available.
15. In the present case, the record, as referred to above, discloses
publication of the application at the temple and at the Village Administrative
Office, followed by an enquiry. The petitioner nevertheless contends that
individual notice was necessary in view of the asserted interest of his
community and the earlier disputes. Publication is not being treated by this
Court as conclusively satisfying every requirement of notice. Whether the
procedure adopted was sufficient in the circumstances, whether persons whose
interests were directly affected ought to have been impleaded or individually
notified, and whether the alleged omission caused prejudice require examination
of the relevant proceedings and records. These objections, together with the
alleged inconsistency between the two reports and the challenge to the proof of
custom, can be examined in the statutory appeal.
16. The Regional Joint Commissioner concluded, on the evidence
produced by respondents 5 to 10, that, on the final day of the ten-day festival, a
person belonging to the Kongu Vellala Gounder community is entitled to the
first ‘Vibuthi’ honour and a person belonging to the Athanur Sengunthar
Mudaliar community, dressed as ‘Rajapathar’, is entitled to the second ‘Vibuthi’
honour. Having regard to the reasons recorded in the impugned order and the
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )

WP No. 39182 of 2026
fact that the festival is scheduled to conclude on 30.10.2026, only three days
from the date of this order, this Court considers it appropriate not to interfere
with the arrangement for the present year. The claimed entitlement of
respondents 5 to 10 and the communities represented by them shall remain
subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the petitioner or any other
aggrieved person under Section 69 of the Act.
17. The limited non-interference for the present festival is an exercise
of discretion concerning the immediate relief sought; it is not an affirmation of
the disputed custom on the merits. The approaching conclusion of the festival
does not cure any procedural illegality. It is relevant only to the decision
whether to disturb the arrangement at this stage while leaving the substantive
and procedural objections open for examination in the statutory proceedings.
Observance of the arrangement during this year shall not, by itself, be treated as
proof of the disputed custom or as creating any additional entitlement for future
years. The appellate authority shall consider the objections independently, after
affording the affected parties an opportunity of being heard, without treating the
observations in this order as findings on the merits. Any appeal shall be subject
to the applicable statutory requirements, including limitation; this order does not
determine its admissibility or extend the prescribed period.
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )

WP No. 39182 of 2026
18. In these circumstances, this Court declines to interfere with the
impugned order in relation to the festival for the present year, leaving it open to
the petitioner to avail himself of the remedy under Section 69 of the Act. With
these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
K.SURENDER J.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
VCA
To,
1. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai- 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Erode.
3. The Executive Officer
Arulmigu Atthanur Amman
Thirukkovil, Atthanur, Ayipalayam,
Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.
4. The Fit Person
Arulmigu Atthanur Amman
Thirukkovil, Atthanur,Ayipalayam,
Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )

WP No. 39182 of 2026
K.SURENDER J.
VCA
WP No. 39182 of 2026
and
W.M.P.Nos.43989 and 47137 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:07:16 pm )