A writ challenging temple closure becomes infructuous once the temple is reopened.

The petitioner challenged the first respondent’s order dated 16 March 2023, which had closed Shree Badrakaliamman Temple at Palavanatham because of an internal dispute among worshippers.

The petitioner sought the order’s quashing and a direction to reopen the temple and permit members of the Moopar community to worship.

At the hearing, both sides represented that the temple had subsequently reopened.

Whether the petition challenging the temple’s closure remained live after the temple was reopened.

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the procedural principle that a writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous when subsequent events remove the relief in dispute.

The petition sought relief against the temple’s closure and for permission to worship. Since both sides confirmed that the temple had reopened, the Court concluded that nothing remained for adjudication.

It therefore did not examine the merits of the challenged closure order.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.