An RDO’s order cannot itself establish HR&CE’s right to administer a temple.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 2 October 2026 of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Tiruchendur, concerning the Arasalvar Temple near Tiruchendur.

The RDO’s order directed that the temple be opened and that, from 5 October 2026, it function under the control of the Joint Commissioner of the HR&CE Department.

The petitioner asserted an association with the temple’s administration but was not shown to be a trustee.

The order stated that it did not decide property or other rights relating to the temple and directed the parties to seek appropriate remedies before a civil court or competent authority.

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari under Article 226 to quash the RDO’s order.

Whether the RDO could, by the impugned order, direct that the temple function under the control of the HR&CE Joint Commissioner, thereby determining or establishing the Department’s right to administer the temple.

Whether the directions intended to keep the temple open for public worship and prevent the petitioner from interfering with its functioning should be set aside.

The judgment does not cite a specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It proceeds on the principles that an administrative order which expressly leaves temple-related rights undecided should not, in the same order, establish the HR&CE Department’s right to administer the temple; any such right must be supported by other documents and not derived from the impugned order.

Disputes concerning property, trusteeship, worship, or administration were left for determination by a competent civil court or authority under the HR&CE Act.

The Court distinguished the RDO’s public-order measure from the question of legal entitlement to administer the temple.

It found that the order expressly disclaimed any determination of temple-related rights, yet its operative direction placed the temple under the Joint Commissioner’s control from 5 October 2026.

The RDO should not have included that direction, and the HR&CE Department could not rely on the impugned order to establish an administrative right; any such claim had to rest on other documents.

However, because the temple had been locked by rival claimants, the Court left intact the directions aimed at ensuring public access and preventing the petitioner from interfering with the temple’s functioning.

The petitioner was left free to pursue remedies against the fourth respondent in accordance with law.

The directions requiring the temple to remain open and preventing the petitioner from interfering with its functioning were preserved; no costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.