The earlier order’s observations continue to operate following the temple’s unlocking.

Both petitions under Article 226 concerned the locking of Arasalwar Pillaiyar Temple, Theppakulatheru, Tiruchendur.

The petitioners sought consideration of their respective representations and directions to remove the lock and prevent rival claimants from locking the temple.

The temple had also been the subject of W.P.(MD) No. 28924 of 2026, disposed of on 5 October 2026.

At the hearing, petitioners’ counsel stated that the temple had been unlocked after these petitions were filed; the Special Government Pleader produced the Joint Commissioner’s order dated 12 October 2026 concerning the unlocking and related measures.

1. Whether further directions were required on the petitioners’ requests to remove the lock and prevent rival claimants from locking the temple, given that it had been unlocked.

2. Whether the observations in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the order dated 5 October 2026 in W.P.(MD) No. 28924 of 2026 should continue to operate in these petitions.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226.

The order does not set out or apply a separate substantive statutory rule or precedent; it records the temple’s unlocking and the Joint Commissioner’s subsequent order, and expressly continues the observations in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the earlier order dated 5 October 2026.

Since the temple had been unlocked after the petitions were instituted, and the Joint Commissioner’s order addressing the unlocking and related measures was placed on record, the Court disposed of the petitions on those developments rather than issuing the requested directions anew.

It further preserved the operation of the specified observations in the earlier order.

No order as to costs was made.