Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madras High Court: In an appeal challenging the court’s order, dated 30-11-2022, restraining the appellant from interfering with the “day-to-day activities of the Village Temple on Grama-Natham land and allowed the respondent-writ petitioner to administer Arulmigu Vembiamman Thirukovil for the time being, a Division Bench of S.M. Subramaniam* and P. Dhanabal, JJ., upheld the impugned order and directed Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to act to maintain peace and proper administration in that locality.
In the instant matter, the dispute concerned with the administration of a village temple situated in grama-natham land belonging to the villagers. It was undisputed that “whole villagers are worshipping the deity in the temple and contributing for conduct of poojas, festivals, functions etc.”
Frequent quarrels between the appellant and the respondent 1 led to a representation to the District Collector; when no action was taken, the writ petition was filed. The writ court had restrained the appellant from interfering with the administration by the petitioner “as Hereditary Trustee for the time being,” and had also held that no third party shall interfere or attempt to use the temple for any purpose other than religious worship.
The core issues in the instant matter are as follows —
-
Whether the temple is a private temple or a public religious institution within the meaning of Section 6(20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (the Act)?
-
Whether the writ court exceeded the scope of the writ prayer by issuing directions restraining interference and recognising the writ petitioner as Hereditary Trustee for the time being?
-
What is the extent of HR&CE’s authority pending adjudication of a petition under Section 63(b) of the Act?
The Court noted that Section 1(3) of the Act states that the Act applies to all Hindu public religious institutions; Section 6(16), 6(18) and 6(20) defines “religious charity”, “religious institution”, and “temple” and Section 63 deals with the powers of Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner to decide disputes, including “whether an institution is religious institution” and “whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee.”
The Court observed that a “temple” means a place “used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof.” The Court emphasised that a temple becomes public when it is —
-
Used as a place of public religious worship
-
Dedicated to public is also a temple
-
Located on grama-natham, a common land, and
-
Supported by “public contributions/donations”.
The Court held that since the villagers worship collectively and fund its functions, the temple falls squarely under the definition of ‘Temple’ within the meaning of Section 6(20) of the Act. Therefore, the Court held that the HR&CE may intervene in case of “maladministration or misappropriation of funds.”
The Court noted that although the writ petition only sought consideration of a representation and restraint against interference, but the writ courts are vested with the powers to mould the prayer or expand the scope in public interest or in the interest of justice. Thus, the Court held that the directions protecting temple administration were justified.
“Writ Court vests with powers to mould the prayer or expand the scope in public interest or in the interest of justice. When the scope of a writ petition need not be confined to the relief sought for, this Court do not find any perversity in respect of the adjudication made by Writ Court on merits in an elaborate manner.”
The Court noted that under Section 63 the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner is empowered to decide, “whether an institution is religious institution,” and “whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee,” etc.
The Court stated that the disputes regarding trusteeship should go before the Civil Court. The Court clarified that HR&CE department has no power to interfere with the religious practices or performance of poojas, however, it may act to ensure proper administration and maintain peace and tranquillity as whole villagers are worshipping at the temple.
The Court clarified that the pendency of Section 63(b) proceedings is not a bar for necessary administrative action to maintain “peace and tranquillity.” The Court noted that the respondent had already filed proceedings under Section 63(b) therefore directed the Joint Commissioner to decide it on merits.
“Mere pendency of an application under Section 63(b) is not a bar for the department to initiate appropriate action under the Act in order to maintain peace and tranquillity in the subject temple, since whole villagers are worshipping at the temple, and it will be paramount importance to maintain public order in that locality.”
The Court upheld the writ court’s directions, finding no perversity and affirming the power of the writ court to “mould the prayer or expand the scope in public interest or in the interest of justice.”
The Court disposed of the writ appeal and affirmed the writ court’s directions. The Court directed the HR&CE department to conduct inspection and initiate further action if required. The Court further directed the Joint Commissioner to adjudicate the pending Section 63(b) application on merits, after hearing all parties.
[R. Thirumurugan v. R. Thennarasu, WA No. 2077 of 2023, Decided on 21-11-2025]
*Judgment by Justice S.M. Subramaniam
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. A.M. Venkata Krishnan, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. U. Venkatesan, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
Mr. S.Senthilmurugan, Special Government Pleader, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2-4
Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader [HR & CE], Counsel for the Respondent No. 5