Temple order THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.45136 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.50285 and 50288 of 2025 1. S.Vasantha 2. V.Shanmugavel .. Petitioners Versus 1. The Commissioner, Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.02.2026
CORAM :
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.45136 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.50285 and 50288 of 2025
1. S.Vasantha
2. V.Shanmugavel .. Petitioners

Versus
1. The Commissioner,
Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
A.K.Thangavelar Street, Kancheepuram – 631 501.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Collectorate Buildings, Kancheepuram – 631 501.
4. The Executive Officer (I/c),
Arulmighu Chinthamani Vinayagar
Vagaiyara Arulmighu Subramania
Swamy Temple,
Krishnan Street, Kancheepuram.
5. The Tahsildhar,
Kancheepuram Taluk, Kancheepuram.
6. The Commissioner, Kancheepuram Corporation, Kancheepuram.
7. The Divisional Engineer,
Tamilnadu State Highways Department,
No.23, Anna Salai,
Kanchipuram – 631 501. .. Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Karthikeyan,
Government Advocate for RR-1 to 4
: Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai,
Government Advocate for R5
: Mr.RA.Gopinath,
Standing Counsel for R6
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records on the file of the second respondent relating to the impugned order, dated 10.10.2025, to quash the same as illegal and consequently, forbearing the respondent
Nos.1 to 4 from in any manner extending the precinct of the Arulmighu Chinthamani Vinayagar Vagaiyara Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple, Krishnan Street, Kancheepuram or moving the temple towards the east and affecting the ingress and the egress of the petitioner.
2. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was 14 feet distance between the boundary of her house, which is situated on the eastern side of the temple and the temple as such. Suddenly, when the temple is now being demolished and reconstructed, the temple wall is now put up right in front of the petitioner’s property and she doesn’t have any ingress and egress at all.
3. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 would contest the said position by stating that it is the petitioner who has encroached the road and therefore, the petitioner cannot complain that her ingress and egress is affected. In this regard, sight inspection has to be done by the surveyor in the presence of the petitioner as well as the Assistant Commissioner and the Executive Officer of the temple and let a report be filed by the fifth respondent in this regard.
4. On a perusal of the original photograph of the temple, it can be seen that it is an ancient stone built mandapam which was there in the front side of the temple. It will be extremely difficult to find even workmanship to recreate the same mandapam in the same manner. However, by simply filing a report before the Heritage Committee that the mandapam was irregular and was not in accordance with vastu, a permission was obtained from the Heritage Committee to demolish the entire construction and reconstruct by using the same structural stone.
5. Under the said circumstances, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the report which states that it is irregular and not in accordance with vastu. As the temple is said to have been in existence for more than 100 years, suddenly, it is stated that it is not all according to vastu and the mandapam is also irregular. On a perusal of the photograph that is produced by the temple, which was standing before the demolition, the action of demolition simply seems to be unconscionable and for the naked eye, the mandapam seems perfect and only in that context, apart from the ground raised by the petitioner, this Court also directed the production of the said report.
6. Today also, the learned Government Advocate was not able to produce the said report and seeks further time to check whether those were mentioned in the report of the Sthapati. Under the said circumstances, until the survey report is filed, let all further works, with reference to the reconstruction of the temple, shall not be done. Let an affidavit with reference to age of the temple shall also be filed by the respondent
authorities.
7. Post this case on 13.02.2026.

04.02.2026
grs
To
1. The Commissioner,
Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
A.K.Thangavelar Street, Kancheepuram – 631 501.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Collectorate Buildings, Kancheepuram – 631 501.
4. The Executive Officer (I/c),
Arulmighu Chinthamani Vinayagar
Vagaiyara Arulmighu Subramania
Swamy Temple,
Krishnan Street, Kancheepuram.
5. The Tahsildhar,
Kancheepuram Taluk, Kancheepuram.
6. The Commissioner,
Kancheepuram Corporation, Kancheepuram.
7. The Divisional Engineer,
Tamilnadu State Highways Department, No.23, Anna Salai,
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
grs

W.P.No.45136 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.50285 and 50288 of 2025
04.02.2026