W.P.No.36742 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 04.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.36742 of 2005 & W.M.P.No.39356 of 2025 1. P.M.C. HARIHARAN 2. P.C.M. THULASIRAM Petitioners Versus 1.THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, CHENNAI - 34. 2. THE JONT COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, MADURAI -1. 3. K.N.R. KUPPUSAMY, 4. K. ESWARAMOORTHI, 5. K. GANESAN, 6. K. SRINIVASAN, Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the 2nd respondent from proceeding with the O.A. No. 6/2003 pending on its file. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36742 of 2005 For Petitioners : Ms.Mehrunisha For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan for R1 and R2 Special Government Pleader Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan for R3 to R6 O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the 2nd respondent from proceeding with the O.A. No. 6/2003 pending on its file. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the trustees of Arulmigu Varadharaja Perumal Temple, Nagal Nagar, governed by the Scheme framed by Board of Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments, Chennai dated 01.03.1935 in O.A.No.54 of 1934, as per Clause 5 of the Scheme, the Sowrastra Sabha, Nagal Nagar, Dindigul shall elect two persons to be the trustees of the said temple, accordingly the petitioners were elected as Trustees of the said temple, while so, the private respondents filed O.A. No.6 of 2003 under Section 63(e) of HR &CE Act claiming special honour and challenging the same, the present writ petion. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36742 of 2005 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that already this Court has held that no one is entitled for special treatment or special mariyathai from temple and all the persons ought to be treated along with all devotees accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents/respondents 3 to 6 prays for appropriate orders from this Court. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that already this Court had held that no one is entitled for special treatement from the temple and all the persons are equal before the God, further it is a public temple and not a private temple, hence the prayer sought by the private respondents in O.A.No.6 of 2003 before the 2nd respondent is not a maintainable one. 6. In view of the above, the O.A.No.6 of 2003 filed by the respondents 3 to 6 before the 2nd respondent seeking special honours is not maintainable and the same is dismissed, in view of the fair stand taken by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36742 of 2005 respondents 1 and 2, that no one is entitled for special treatement or special mariyathai during the temple festival and all the persons shall be treated only on par with other devotees. Accodingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed and the O.A.No.6 of 2003 filed by the private respondents is hereby dismissed as not maintainable one. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Further, the 1st respondent, Commissioner, HR&CE, Chennai is directed to communicate the order of this Court to all the Joint Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners to close the petitions seeking special treatment. 04.09.2025 Index:Yes/No; Internet:Yes/No Speaking /Non speaking Judgment ssd 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36742 of 2005 To 1.THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, CHENNAI - 34. 2. THE JONT COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, MADURAI -1. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36742 of 2005 M.DHANDAPANI, J., ssd W.P.No.36742 of 2005 04.09.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis