IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI W.P. No.42839 of 2025 and WMP. No. 47901 of 2025 Sri Rama Nandeeswarar Temple, Rep. by its Hereditary Trustee, Mr.R.Rajasekaran Petitioner Vs 1.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mayiladuthurai. 2.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Poraiyar, Mayiladuthurai. 3.The Fit Person/Executive Officer, A/m.Rajagopalasamy Temple, Ananthamanagalam, Tharangambadi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District. Respondents PRAYER: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records of the 1st respondent in this proceedings Se.Mu.Moo.Mu.No:AC014/527/2025-C2, 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis dated 09.04.2025 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Murugamanickam, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Jawahar For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate ORDER This Writ Petition is filed to quash the proceedings the of the 1st respondent in Se.Mu.Moo.Mu.No:AC014/527/2025-C2, dated 09.04.2025. 2. Heard Mr.Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent has been appointed as a Fit Person for the Temple, without even any prior notice to the writ petitioner who has been admittedly recognized as the Hereditary Trustee of the temple. The learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to the communication dated 10.07.2024, where the Inspector 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis attached to the Department has addressed a communication which clearly spells out that the petitioner is administering the Temple as a Hereditary Trustee and thereafter, certain irregularities and deficiencies have been pointed out, warranting the appointment of Fit Person. The impugned order clearly indicates that the order was passed without hearing the Hereditary Trustee. It has been alleged that the writ petitioner has not been able to complete the Temple renovation works in time. However, the petitioner's version with regard to delay, if any, has not even been called for. 4. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 09.04.2025 and it is open to the second respondent to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against the writ petitioner for the deficiencies and other irregularities as the case may be, and after hearing the petitioner and giving a fair opportunity, final orders shall be passed within a period of eight (8) weeks, from the date of issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis P.B.BALAJI.J., 5. In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 24.11.2025 rkp Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To 1.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mayiladuthurai. 2.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Poraiyar, Mayiladuthurai. 3.The Fit Person/Executive Officer, A/m.Rajagopalasamy Temple, Ananthamanagalam, Tharangambadi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District. W.P. No.42839 of 2025 and WMP. No. 47901 of 2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis