HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W. P.No.47434 of 2025and W.M.P.No.52953 of 2025 Sivaraman … Petitioner Vs 1. The Additional Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments, St. George Fort, Chennai.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W. P.No.47434 of 2025and
W.M.P.No.52953 of 2025
Sivaraman … Petitioner
Vs
1. The Additional Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments, St. George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Charitable & Endowment Department, Kottai Mariyamman Kovil Campus, Salem.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, Kottai Maariyamman Kovil Campus, Salem District.
… Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for an issuance of Writ of Declaration, to declare that the order of the 1st respondent in GO.(U) No.121, (Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (ANi3-1) Department) dated 06.03.2025 as null and void.
For Petitioner : Ms.D.Jeevitha for M/s.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate (HR&CE)
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to declare that the order of the 1st respondent in GO.(U) No.121, (Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (ANi3-1) Department) dated 06.03.2025 as null and void. By the said order, five non hereditary trustees were appointed to the Arulmigu Sri Thanthondreeswarar Temple at Belur Village, Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District.
2. The contention of the petitioner is two-fold. One is that the petitioner belongs to a particular caste, and that particular caste people had a right to pull the rope in the said temple, and the temple was also administered from among the said caste people and therefore, from among the said caste nobody is appointed and therefore, a representation must be given. The second contention is that the Chinnamanaickkenpalayam is also an adjacent village and the common public of the said village worship the same deity and in the past, persons from the said village also administered the said temple. This time, the said village has been totally not given any representation. The third contention of the petitioner is that out of the five trustees, three belongs to a single caste and therefore, the same should not be permitted.
3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the HR & CE Department would submit that the temple is to be administered by appointing non-hereditary trustees for a period of 2 years. This time, by the impugned G.O., the appointment has been made for a period of 2 years. The appointment was not made on any caste basis. It was made among all the devotees and the devotees are also from Scheduled Caste and women representation is also given. Therefore, no claim on the basis of the caste can be entertained. It is not the respondents policy to exclude the Chinnamanaickkenpalayam Village as such. The devotees will be appointed after consideration in accordance with the rules. It is true that in the past, some persons from Chinnamanaickenpalayam Village were also administering the temple.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
5. Firstly, no caste can have any right in respect of any temple. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner on caste basis stands rejected as opposed to public policy and it has also been held that caste is not a religious denomination for that purpose. Further directions are given in the earlier order that the appointments shall be made only based on mwr;rpe;jid (virtuous thinking) and Md;kPfrr; pe;jid (spiritual thinking) not $hjp rpe;jid (caste thinking). When the respondents have made appointment without reference to caste, the same shall not be found fault with. Secondly, there may be genuineness in the second contention that if Chinnamanaickkenpalayam Village is also involved in the administration and devotees also the worship of the temple, somebody should be appointed from that village also. Therefore, care must be taken by the respondents while they appoint trustees alternatively after every 2 years, to give representation to that particular village also. Since the appointment has been validly made and no other legal impediment is brought to the notice of this Court, I am of the view that the prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted as prayed far.
6. With the above observation to consider the case of
Chinnamanaickkenpalayam Village in the next round of appointment, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.No costs.
11.12.2025
veda
Neutral Citation: Yes
To
1. The Additional Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments, St. George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Charitable & Endowment Department, Kottai Mariyamman Kovil Campus, Salem.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Department, Kottai Maariyamman Kovil Campus, Salem District. 
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
veda
W.P.No47434 of 2025and W.M.P.No.52953 of 2025
11.12.2025