WP No. 14018 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 14018 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 15277 OF 2026,WMP NO. 15279 OF 2026 Kanchipuram Arulmigu Gnanaprakasa Desika Swamigal Madathu Seedarkal Sangam, Rep by its President Pitchumani, S/o.Balasubramanian, No.11, T.K.Chidambaranathan 1st Street, Srinivasa Nagar Extn, New Perungulathur, Chennai-600 063. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner, HR and CE No.119, Uthamar Ganthi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 035. 2. Additional Commissioner, (Admin) HR and CE, No.119, Uthamar Ganthi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 035. 3. Assistant Commissioner HR and CE,Collectorate Complex, Kanchipuram District- 631501. 4. Chairman Advisory Committee of Kanchipuram Arulmigu Gnanaprakasa Desika Swamigal Mutt, Periya Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District- 631 502. 5. Tamil Nadu Thondai Mandala Mudaliyar Sangam Rep, by its General Secretary, No.121,9th Street, Thillai Nagar, Trichy-620 018. ..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 14018 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records leading to the impugned order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.15671/ 2022/ S2, dated 06.02.2026, on the file of 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, Arbitrary,Unsustainable and Unconstitutional and further directing the 1st Respondent to consider the Petitioners representation, dated 24.10.2025 and pass an order afresh in accordance with law, within a stipulated time may be fixed by this Honble High Court. WP No. 14018 of 2026 For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Agni Selvaraju For Respondent(s): Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Order This Writ Petition has been filed against the order of the 1st respondent, wherein 4th respondent has been appointed without considering the representation of the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he is the President of Kanchipuram Arulmigu Gnanaprakassa Desika Swamgial Madathuy Seedarkal Sangam, an institution of more than 2500 years old mutt. The said Mutt is created for the welfare of the Thondai Mandala Vellala Community and the members of the said community alone are recognized as disciples of the Mutt and the petitioner is one among the disciples of the Mutt. An administrative body for the said mutt has been constituted under a scheme decree, which provides that the 4th https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 14018 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 respondent shall be appointed in consultation with the disciples of the Mutt. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent without considering the petitioner’s representation, has passed the impugned order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent in the impugned order mentioned the name of the 5th respondent as Tamil Nadu Thondai Mandala Vellala Saiva Muthaliyar Sangam has been recommended to appoint the 4th respondent. As per the scheme decree, the 4th respondent to be appointed by the 1st respondent on consultation wit the disciples. 4. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the dispute is between the petitioner’s sangam and another sangam. It was contended that such disputes are civil in nature and cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the 4th respondent advisory committee is only for a period of one year on the basis of the recommendation made by the 5th respondent and therefore, no prejudice has been caused warranting interference by this Court. 5. Heard both sides and also perused the materials available on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 14018 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 6. Upon consideration, it is evident that the issue pertains to a dispute between two rival sangams regarding consultation and representation in the appointment process. Such a dispute involves examination of factual aspects and interpretation of rights, which are matters more appropriately adjudicated before a competent Civil Court. 7. Further, this Court is of the view that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve inter se disputes between private parties, particularly when an effective alternative remedy is available. In the light of the above, ths Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs and liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. 15-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SK To 1. The Commissioner, HR and CE No.119, Uthamar Ganthi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 035. 2. Additional Commissioner, (Admin) HR and CE, No.119, Uthamar Ganthi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 035. 3. Assistant Commissioner HR and CE,Collectorate Complex, Kanchipuram District- 631501. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 14018 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 M.DHANDAPANI J. sk WP No. 14018 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 15277 OF 2026,WMP NO. 15279 OF 2026 15-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis