Disputed rights over temple administration must be determined by a civil court, not in writ proceedings.

The petitioner, a member of the Arundathiyar Pagidithili community, asserted that a temple at Uppukottai was common to members of 22 villages and had traditionally been administered collectively.

A dispute arose over the proposed 2026 Kumbabishekam: the petitioner opposed replacing the existing cement idols with new stone idols, while respondents 6–12 supported their replacement.

The petitioner sought official intervention and police protection, but the groups did not reach consensus; documents showed competing claims to administration and participation by different subsets of villages.

The petitioner filed this Article 226 petition seeking consideration of his representation and restraints on unilateral conduct of the ceremony and replacement of the idols.

1. Whether the Court could determine, in this writ petition, the parties’ competing civil claims to administer the community temple and conduct its Kumbabishekam.

2. Whether, pending resolution of those claims, the Court should restrain replacement of the existing cement idols and require the ceremony to be conducted jointly in accordance with the asserted customary practice.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that a disputed civil right to administer a temple cannot be determined in a writ petition and should be agitated before the Civil Court.

Pending that determination, the existing customary practice, including worship of the cement idols, may continue.

The materials disclosed rival claims over temple administration, conflicting accounts of the meetings and resolutions, and no consensus among the 22 villages regarding either the conduct of the Kumbabishekam or replacement of the idols.

Although the petitioner accepted that the cement idols were damaged, he opposed installing stone idols.

Because resolving these disputes required determination of civil rights, the Court declined to decide which group was entitled to administer the temple in writ jurisdiction.

It left that question, and the consequential conduct of the Kumbabishekam, to the Civil Court, while stating that the existing practice should continue meanwhile.

Until that Court determines the rightful administrator, the existing customary practice, including worship of the cement idols, may continue; the Kumbabishekam may be conducted after the civil dispute is resolved.