Temple Must Tie the Mavilai, While Both Factions May Conduct Horse Processions.

The petitioner, President of the Rajakula Agamudayar Community, sought directions concerning arrangements for the Purattasi festival at Arulmigu Pattalamman Muthiahswamy Temple, scheduled for 12–14 October 2026.

He relied on an arrangement made for the 2025 festival in W.P.(MD) No. 26886 of 2025.

The parties had not reached consensus on tying the Mavilai and erecting the pandal.

The Fit Person proposed that the temple undertake those arrangements and that persons from both East Street and Ammapatti Street be permitted to take part in the horse procession.

An appeal concerning modification of the temple’s management scheme was pending before the Commissioner.

1. Whether the Court should direct the festival arrangements sought by the petitioner or accept the Fit Person’s proposed arrangements for the 2026 festival

2. Whether participation in the horse procession by persons from both East Street and Ammapatti Street should be permitted without affecting rights in the pending scheme appeal

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek a writ of mandamus.

The Court applied its order dated 10 October 2025 in W.P.(MD) No. 26886 of 2025 as a temporary arrangement for that year only; that order expressly created no rights in favour of any person.

It also considered the Division Bench’s order dated 21 April 2026 in W.A.(MD) No. 540 of 2026 and related cases, which directed disposal of the appeal concerning modification of the temple scheme within three months and required an opportunity to be given to the temple and existing trustees.

The 2025 arrangement therefore did not determine any continuing entitlement, and the pending appeal was to be decided independently of observations in the present order.

Because the prior year’s arrangement was expressly ad hoc and conferred no continuing rights, it did not require the Court to repeat that arrangement as a matter of entitlement.

In light of the absence of consensus and the Fit Person’s proposal, the Court accepted that the temple, through the Fit Person, would undertake the Mavilai-related arrangements, while persons from both streets could take part in the horse procession.

To preserve the independence of the pending scheme appeal, the Court clarified that the festival arrangement would confer no rights and would not influence the Commissioner’s decision.

The arrangement conferred no rights and was not to influence the pending appeal before the Commissioner.

The Inspector of Police, Jeyamangalam Police Station, was directed to provide necessary protection for the festival.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.