IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI WP No. 43883 of 2025 1. I. Ammani Ammal No.2, Paruvatharajakula Street, Melmalayanur Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. 2.Unnamalai, W/o. Raman, No.2, Paruvatharajakula Street, Melmalayanur Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. 3. Kasthuri W/o. Ekambaram, No.2, Paruvatharajakula Street, Melmalayanur Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. 4. Kannagi W/o. Kadhirvel, No.2, Paruvatharajakula Street, Melmalayanur Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. Petitioner(s) 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Vs 1. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034 2.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Villupuram District. 3.The Assistant Commissioner /Executive Officer Arulmighu Melmalaiyanur Angalamman Temple, Melmalayanur, Villupuram. 4.The Chairman of Board of Trustees Arulmighu Melmalayanur Angalamman Temple, Melmalayanur, Villupuram. 5.Sundaramurthy Melmalayanur Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. 6.Suresh Melmalayanur Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. 7.Venkatesan Melmalayanur Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd and 4th Respondents to allow the petitioners to perform poojas framed scheme order in O.A.No.144/1968 dated 05.03.1973 in his father namely Murugesan Poosari right in the said temple and to take necessary action as against Sundaramurthy, Suresh, Venkatesan based on the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis representation of the petitioners dated 03.07.2025. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Venkateswaran For Respondents: Mr.K.Karthekeiyan Government Advocate for R1 to R4 ORDER Mr.K.Karthekeiyan, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. 2. Since no adverse order is being passed against the private respondents, notice to them is dispensed with. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, earlier, similarly placed female member had approached the Joint Commissioner with a request to permit her to perform pooja and worship deity. However, finding that the said petitioner had not made out any case by producing sufficient documentary for oral evidence, the claim was dismissed. 4. Mr.K.Venkateswaran, learned counsel for the petitioners invite my attention 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to the order dated 22.09.2025, the Assistant Commissioner and the Board of Trustees, were directed to act in terms of the settled customary practice and subject to the same being in accordance with law. 5. Therefore, the contention of Mr.K.Venkateswaran, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that in the present case, the petitioners need not be driven to file a separate application under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, as there is already a direction by the Joint Commissioner, directing the Assistant Commissioner and the Board of Trustees to ensure that the temple is administered in accordance with law and taking into account the settled customs prevailing. He would submit that the Assistant Commissioner and the Board of Trustees, to whom the representation has already been made, may be directed to consider the same and pass orders. 6. Mr.K.Karthekeiyan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 however submit that the petitioners are not entitled to perform pooja as a matter of right. On instructions, he submit that there is no custom that 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis female members are allowed to perform poojas and therefore, the request of the petitioners cannot be acceded. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The petitioners are only praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, claiming that the petitioners have been permitted to perform poojas earlier in terms of the scheme framed in O.A.No.144 of 1968 dated 05.03.1973. Therefore, I do not see any impediment for the Assistant Commissioner and the Board of Trustees/respondents 3 & 4 to act on the representation of the petitioners dated 03.07.2025, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to establish their claim that as per the custom, the petitioners are entitled to do poojas. The respondents 3 & 4, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners and any other persons concerned and pass orders on merits as expeditiously as possible, and not later than a period of eight (8) weeks from today, considering that the petitioners' turn 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis has already commenced in July 2025 and would expire in June 2026. 9. With the above observation and direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 13-11-2025 Jd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034 2.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Villupuram District. 3.The Assistant Commissioner /Executive Officer Arulmighu Melmalaiyanur Angalamman Temple, Melmalayanur, Villupuram. 4.The Chairman of Board of Trustees Arulmighu Melmalayanur Angalamman Temple, Melmalayanur, Villupuram. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis P.B.BALAJI J. jd WP No. 43883 of 2025 13-11-2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis