Madras High Court orders probe into alleged sale of over 200 temple buffaloes and directs action over Executive Officer’s suspected negligence

The petitioner challenged the Temple Executive Officer’s orders dated 24 August 2026, including an order affecting him and a consequential order freezing his joint bank account.

He contended that the orders were made without notice or an opportunity to be heard, in connection with allegations concerning the unauthorised sale of temple buffaloes.

The Government Advocate submitted that notice had been issued pursuant to directions in a related writ petition.

On examining the challenged order, the Court found no reference to the issuance or service of notice on the petitioner.

1. Whether the order affecting the petitioner was sustainable when it was made without notice and an opportunity for a personal hearing.

2. Whether the consequential freezing of the petitioner’s bank account could remain in force after the underlying order was set aside.

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to investigate the alleged unauthorised sale of temple buffaloes and the Executive Officer’s role.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, requiring that a person affected by an adverse decision receive proper notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the decision is made; an order passed in breach of those requirements is unsustainable.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Although the respondents asserted that notice had been issued, the challenged order did not record any issuance or service of notice on the petitioner. The Court therefore concluded that the petitioner had not been given notice or an opportunity for a personal hearing, rendering the order procedurally unfair and unsustainable.

Because the account-freezing order was consequential to that order, it too could not stand.

Separately, the reported sale of more than 200 buffaloes raised concerns about supervision and the Executive Officer’s discharge of duties, warranting a detailed enquiry.

If the respondents intended to proceed against the petitioner, they were to issue a proper show-cause notice, provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing, conduct a detailed enquiry, and pass orders on the merits in accordance with law.

The official respondents were also directed to investigate the alleged unauthorised sales and take appropriate action against those responsible, including the Executive Officer for any dereliction of duty.

The writ petition was disposed of without an order as to costs.