Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2442 of 2025 & 1729 of 2026 L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. This matter is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in view of the election having been rescheduled to 17.05.2026, certain modifications are required to the order dated 06.04.2026, and therefore prays that the same may kindly be modified accordingly. 3. In view of the same, in para 29 & 30 of the order dated 06.04.2026 passed in these petitions is replaced as follows:- “29. The Advocate Commissioner shall: (i) Issue notice to all eligible Thalaikattu Varitharars at least 15 clear days prior to the date of election in any manner known by law; (ii) Conduct the election on 17.05.2026 between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. at Taluk Office, Ottanchathiram; (iii) Conduct counting on the same day between 5.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m.; (iv) Declare the results on the same day; 1/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (v) File a report along with photographs before this Court on 04.06.2026. 30. The format and procedure of voting shall be in line with the earlier process adopted by the Tahsildar, ensuring transparency and fairness and voting is directed to be conducted in the following format: ehs; : 17.05.2026 ,lk; : tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfk;> xl;ld;rj;jpuk;. thf;FrPl;L vz;: t.vz; 2013 jpUtpoh miog;gpjo; cs;sgb ngah; ifnahg;gk; Nfhtpy; NfhGuj;jpd; fPo; cs;s fUtiwapy; itj;J topghL nra;a vdJ thf;fpid gjpT nra;fpNwd;. ( v nra;aTk;) Gjpjhf Xl;Ltpy;iyapy; fUtiw fl;b my;yJ jw;Nghija epiyapy; itj;J topghL nra;a vdJ thf;fpid gjpT nra;fpNwd;. ( v nra;aTk;) thf;fhsh; ifnahg;gk; thf;FrPl;L vz;: 2/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis It is made clear that both the parties are directed to furnish the entire voters list to the Advocate Commissioner prior to 20.04.2026.” 4. Barring the above, there are no other modifications to order dated 06.04.2026 passed in these petitions. 5. Registry shall issue fresh order copy to the parties concerned incorporating the aforesaid modification. 17.04.2026 sm Note: Issue order copy on 20.04.2026. 3/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. Sm Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2442 of 2025 & 1729 of 2026 Dated 17.04.2026 4/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.Crl.(MD).Nos.2442 of 2025 and 1729 of 2026 W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2442 of 2025 Rajasekaran .... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Tahsildhar, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District 2. The Inspector of Police, Idayakottai Police Station, Dindigul District 3. Pon.Eagambaram 4. Rethinam ....Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, thereby call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to order in Na.Ka.No.2370/2023/A3 dated 27.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and in consequence thereof direct the 2nd respondent to give adequate protection to shift the deity to its original position at Arulmighu Sri Papathiamman Temple, Margampatty, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District and permit the 5/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner to perform Kumbabishegam. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For R-1 : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate (Civil side) For R-2 : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor For R-3 : Mr.D.Sivaraman W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1729 of 2026 Pon.Egambaram .... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Oddanchathiram Division, Dindigul District. 2. The Inspector of Police Idayakottai Police Station, Dindigul District. 3. The Tahsildar Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District. 4. K.Rajasekaran ....Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection to the Writ petitioner and other pangalis to conduct poojas and other related activities at Sri Pappathi Amman Temple, Margampatti Village, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sivaraman 6/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For R-1 to R-2 : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor For R-3 : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate (Civil side) For R-4 : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian ORDER These writ petitions arise out of a long-standing dispute among the Pangalis (descendants) of Arulmigu Papathi Amman Temple, Margampatti Village, Ottanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District, relating to the mode of worship, placement of the deity and the conduct of Kumbabhishekam. 2. While W.P.(MD) No.2442 of 2025 challenges the proceedings of the first respondent dated 27.11.2025, W.P.(MD) No.1729 of 2026 seeks police protection for conducting poojas and temple-related activities. 3. Sri Papathi Amman is the Kula theivam (family deity) of a large clan, namely, Chola Naattar Viswakula Pangaligal. Sri Papathi Amman Temple at Margambatti was originally constructed by Thiru Karupanna Asari almost 200 years back, when he, along with other Vishwakarma community people, migrated from Kaveripoompattinam to Margambatti Village at the request of Mamparai Zamin for doing carpentry work relating to his palace and also for agricultural activities. The temple was constructed by Karupanna Asari in the land offered by the Mamparai Zamin. 7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4. The temple does not have any idol, as Sri Papathi Amman is worshipped in a non-physical form. It is believed that the deity is present in a clay pot with a sacred saree inside, which is hung from the ceiling on a tiled roof of the temple. Sri Papathi Amman has been worshipped in this form for around 200 years. 5. There are about 147 Pangalis who are descendants of Karupanna Asari, who used to worship in the temple. Though almost all the Pangalis have migrated to different parts of the State for various reasons, including education and employment, the festival is conducted for three days during Thai Pongal. All the Pangalis used to worship Sri Kamatchi Amman also, as there was no temple for Kamatchi Amman in Margambatti Village. 6. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are interlinked and arise out of the same factual matrix, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. Case of the petitioner in W.P.Crl.(MD) No.2442 of 2025: 7. The case of the petitioner is that the temple is about 250 years old and is unique in nature, wherein the deity is worshipped in a non-physical form, represented through ancestral objects. According to the petitioner, originally about 59 families were entitled to participate in the temple affairs and the temple was reconstructed in the year 2007, followed by 8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Kumbabhishekam. 8. It is further stated that after renovation issues arose, the deity was temporarily shifted and thereafter disputes arose between factions regarding restoration and renovation.The petitioner would contend that pursuant to earlier directions of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.12163 of 2023, a peace committee meeting was held and a decision was taken to restore the deity to the temple and conduct Kumbabhishekam. 9. However, the 2nd respondent allegedly obstructed the same and influenced the first respondent to conduct a fresh meeting and election, culminating in the impugned order dated 27.11.2025. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to conduct elections or decide civil rights relating to temple administration and that the impugned order is arbitrary. Case of the respondents: 10. The respondents would contend that the temple belongs to 147 Pangalis, descendants of the original founder, and not merely 59 families as claimed by the petitioner. It is stated that the traditional mode of worship involves placing the deity in a hanging position and that the petitioner had unilaterally altered the same in 2007 without consensus. 9/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11. According to the respondents, majority of the Pangalis opposed such change and decided to restore the traditional practice. It is further submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court, peace committee meetings were conducted, and the majority consistently favoured continuation of the traditional practice. 12. It is contended that the impugned proceedings dated 27.11.2025 were passed only after conducting voting among the Pangalis and therefore reflect the collective will. The respondents would further submit that any unilateral conduct by the petitioner may lead to serious law and order issues. Case in W.P.Crl.(MD) No.1729 of 2026: 13. The petitioners therein seek police protection to conduct poojas and temple activities based on the majority decision taken among the Pangalis and the proceedings of the Tahsildar. It is their contention that despite there being no interim order in the connected writ petition, the authorities have failed to provide protection citing it to be a civil dispute. Grounds for quash in W.P.Crl.(MD) No.2442 of 2025: 14. The petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on the following grounds: (i) The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate temple disputes or 10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis conduct elections; (ii) Peace committee decisions have no legal sanctity; (iii) The eligible voters were not properly identified; (iv) Customary religious practices cannot be interfered with by administrative orders; (v) The impugned order is arbitrary and violative of settled principles. Arguments on either side: 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and amounts to interference in religious and civil rights. It is further contended that the Tahsildar has virtually assumed the role of a civil Court, which is impermissible in law. 16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the authorities have acted only to maintain law and order and to give effect to the majority view among the Pangalis. It is argued that the dispute is essentially among family members and therefore the decision taken by majority deserves acceptance to maintain harmony. Point for consideration: 17. The point that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the impugned proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 27.11.2025 are sustainable in law and what relief is to be granted to resolve the dispute 11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis among the Pangalis? Analysis: 18. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the entire materials available on record. 19. It is not in dispute that the temple is a family temple managed by Pangalis and that disputes have arisen regarding the mode of worship and placement of the deity. It is also evident that earlier, this Court had directed the authorities to conduct peace committee meetings and ascertain the views of all stakeholders. 20. However, it is well settled that peace committee decisions or administrative proceedings cannot conclusively determine civil rights or religious customs. At the same time, this Court cannot ignore the practical reality that the dispute is among Pangalis and any unilateral action may lead to breach of peace. 21. The materials placed before this Court reveal conflicting claims regarding the number of eligible Pangalis (59 vs. 147), thereby rendering the earlier exercise inconclusive. In such circumstances, instead of entering into disputed questions of fact, this Court is of the considered view that a fair, transparent and inclusive mechanism must be adopted to ascertain the 12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis collective will of all Pangalis. 22. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on either side fairly submitted that they are agreeable for conducting a fresh voting process, provided it is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. This Court finds such submission to be reasonable and in the interest of justice, as it would balance competing claims and avoid further litigation. 23. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to facilitate a fresh voting to determine the will of the Pangalis. 24. Accordingly, a fresh voting process shall be conducted among the 147 Thalaikattu Varitharars (temple tax payers), whose list as concluded in the temple festival during the year 2013 could be the voters for this purpose and the same is as follows: 13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25. The list of the deceased as admitted by both the parties is as follows: 15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.No. Name Home Town 1 V.Mariappan Karur 2 A.Satish Karur 3 P.Durai Karur 4 P.Gurusamy Karur 5 C.Balagurusamy Coiambatore 6 S.Saravanakumar Udumalai 7 P.MaduraBabu Coiambatore 8 Pon.Kandasamy Dindigul 9 P.Kannaiyan @ Rathinam Karur 10 S.Arumugam Markampatty 11 N.Subramanian Thottiam 12 S.Mani Thottiam 13 P.Nallusamy Kulithalai 14 S.Karuppanan Kulithalai 15 C.Manikam Asari Palayajenkondam 16 Nallusamy Palayajenkondam 17 P.Subramanian Thavittupalayam 18 N.Muthusamy Asari Pandipuram 26. It is further clarified that married daughters of the deceased Thalaikattuvaritharar shall not be entitled to claim any right to vote in matters relating to the administration or affairs of the temple. However, such exclusion shall not in any manner affect their customary and religious 16/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis rights, and they shall continue to have full entitlement to worship, participate in poojas, and take part in all temple festivals and related religious observances. 27. It is further clarified that, on marriage the married daughters acquire the Kula Theivam of their respective matrimonial families. 28. For the purpose of conducting the said voting, this Court appoints an Advocate Commissioner, Thiru. M.P. Senthil, Advocate (Enrollment No. 1625 (d) / 2000), 103, Law Chamber, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, Phone No. 99941 65050. 29. The Advocate Commissioner shall: (i) Issue notice to all eligible Thalaikattu Varitharars at least 15 clear days prior to the date of election in any manner known by law; (ii) Conduct the election on 26.04.2026 between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. at the Tahsildar Office, Ottanchathiram; (iii) Conduct counting on the same day between 5.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m.; 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (iv) Declare the results on the same day; (v) File a report along with photographs before this Court on 29.04.2026. 30. The format and procedure of voting shall be in line with the earlier process adopted by the Tahsildar, ensuring transparency and fairness and voting is directed to be conducted in the following format: 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ehs; : 26.04.2026 ,lk; : tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfk;> xl;ld;rj;jpuk;. thf;FrPl;L vz;: t.vz; 2013 jpUtpoh miog;gpjo; cs;sgb ngah; jw;NghJ thf;fspf;Fk; eghpd; ngah; kw;Wk; 2013 jpUtpoh miog;gpjopy; cs;s eghpd; cwTKiw ifnahg;gk; Nfhtpy; NfhGuj;jpd; fPo; cs;s fUtiwapy; itj;J topghL nra;a vdJ thf;fpid gjpT nra;fpNwd;. ( v nra;aTk;) Gjpjhf Xl;Ltpy;iyapy; fUtiw fl;b my;yJ jw;Nghija epiyapy; itj;J topghL nra;a vdJ thf;fpid gjpT nra;fpNwd;. ( v nra;aTk;) thf;fhsh; ifnahg;gk; thf;FrPl;L vz;: 31. The petitioners in both writ petitions shall pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the Advocate Commissioner towards fees. 19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions are directed to meet the expenditure towards postage, travel and other incidental expenses of the Commissioner in the conduct of voting. 33. As far as the Thalaikattuvarithars who are in abroad, they shall be permitted to vote through Whatsapp in the presence of both side counsels through video call. It is clarified that all the Thalaikattuvarithars in India should vote only in person. 34. The 2nd respondent Idayakottai Police are directed to provide necessary protection for the smooth conduct of the voting process. 35. The 3rd respondent Tahsildar, Ottanchathiram Taluk is directed to facilitate conduct of voting in Tahsildar Office, Ottanchathiram. 36. Post both the writ petitions for further orders on 29.04.2026. 06.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Sml Note: Issue order copy on 06.04.2026. To 20/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1. The Tahsildhar Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District 2. The Inspector of Police Idayakottai Police Station, Dindigul District 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Oddanchathiram Division, Dindigul District. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 21/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. Sml W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.2442 of 2025 and 1729 of 2026 06.04.2026 22/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis