MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN WP(MD) NO. 27409 of 2025 and WMP(MD)Nos.21341 and 21343 of 2025 Venkata Krishnan.S S/o Shri Sadagopan, 95 1st Floor Mela Chitra Street, Srirangam, Trichy 620 006. … Petitioner Vs

WP(MD) NO. 27409 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
WP(MD) NO. 27409 of 2025 and
WMP(MD)Nos.21341 and 21343 of 2025
Venkata Krishnan.S
S/o Shri Sadagopan,
95 1st Floor Mela Chitra Street,
Srirangam, Trichy 620 006. … Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary,
Department of Tourism,
Culture and Religious Endowments, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commisioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034.
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thiruvanaikaval, Trichy 620 001.
4. The Executive Officer,
Sri Varadharaja Perumal Temple, Kiliyanallur, Trichy 621 213.
5. The Board of Trustees / Fit Persons
Sri Varadharaj Perumal Temple,
Kiliyanallur, Trichy 621 213. …Respondents
For Petitioner : Vadiraj Anirudh S G
For Respondents : Mr.G.Suriya Ananth,
Additional Government Pleader
Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 4 and 5 to conduct all upcoming Utasavams with all rituals and processions as per the Agama Sastras and customary practice of the temple until Kumbabisekam in Sri Varadharaj Perumal Temple, Kiliyanallur, Trichy District and pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
ORDER
The writ petitioner is a devotee of the presiding deity of Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple , Kiliyanallur, Trichy – 621213. He is a regular participant in the temple activities. Therefore, this writ petition is maintainable at his instance.
2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the temple management not to conduct the procession of the Urchavar in connection with the Vijayadasami festival to be held on 02.10.2025 and the Pavithrotsavam to be held between 04.10.2025 and 07.10.2025. The temple management had issued a notification that since “Balalayam” had taken place on 20.04.2025, it had been opined by an agamic expert that the procession of the Urchavar should not be conducted till the renovation works are completed. The said stand of the temple management is under challenge in this writ petition.
3.The temple in question comes under the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department. However, there is no hereditary trustee or regular trustee for the temple. An executive officer of another temple has been appointed as Fit Person for this temple. He had consulted Sri Therizhandur K.Sriraman Battachariyar in this regard. On the other hand, the writ petitioner relies on the opinion given by Shri Vasudeva Battachariyar, Chennai. It is relevant to note that it was Sri Vasudeva Battachariyar who conducted the “Balalayam”.
4.There is no consensus between the two pandits. Both claim to be experts. However, it is well settled that the opinion of the expert is not final or binding on the court. It is the court that has to take the eventual decision. The opinion of Sri
Vasudeva Battachariyar is as follows :

The opinion of Sri Therizhandur K.Sriraman Battachariyar is as follows :

5.As per Section 51 of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 45 of BSA) Whenever the opinion of any living person is relevant, the grounds on which such opinion is based are also relevant. It is well settled that opinion is no evidence, unless the reason is assigned for such opinion. A bald statement is not sufficient to prove any fact. In the case on hand, it is the temple management which wants to stop the procession of the Urchavar on the ground that “Balalayam” has been done. In that event, the onus is on the temple management to demonstrate to the satisfaction of this Court that the Agamas forbid conducting outdoor processions of the Urchavar. Any expert has to cite the relevant Agama for the guidance of the court. It cannot be the ipse dixit of the expert concerned. I carefully went through the opinion of Sriraman Battachariyar. He has referred to two slokas from Easwara Samhithai. I consulted a few experts to know the plain meaning of the said slokas. Nowhere there is any injunction against holding processions of the Urchavar when the “Balalayam” has been done. I say with utmost respect to the said expert that the plain translation should have been independently given. Instead, the opinion is a mix of the meaning of the sloka and the opinion of the expert. In my view, the basis of the opinion should be independently made available. I am satisfied that the slokas relied on by the expert do not justify the opinion given Sri Sriraman Battachariyar.
6.On the other hand, the opinion given by Sri Vasudeva Battachariyar appears to be more apposite.
7.The case on hand concerns the exercise of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. On account of “Balalayam”, the life force of the Moolavar has been transferred to a painting drawn on a wooden plank. The Urchavar remains as He is. I am told that if the life force of the Moolavar had been transferred to the Urchavar, then, there cannot be any performance of the Urchavam. In this case, such a transference has not taken place.
8.It would be easy to show the door to the devotee on the ground that there is no judicially manageable standard to determine the issue. I however look at the issue from another perspective. The issue has to be tested from the perspective of burden of proof. This burden has not at all been discharged in this case. The Fit Person had taken opinion from a solitary expert and issued a ban order. One swallow doesn’t make a summer. I have already noted that his opinion does not rest on any definite or even factual foundation. In such matters, it is not appropriate to prevent the devotees from exercising their fundamental right on the basis of such solitary opinion. In such matters, the department should have called for response from the devotees well in time. The matter should have been deliberated at length. The opinion of the Mutt heads should have been obtained. Nothing of that sort was done. The Fit Person who is a department employee took opinion from a single individual and unilaterally announced that processions will not be held. This is not a fair approach. It is for this reason, I interfere.
9.I, therefore, issue a Writ of Mandamus as prayed for. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26-09-2025
skm
Note : Issue order copy today (26.09.2025)
To
1.The Secretary, Department of Tourism,
Culture and Religious Endowments,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commisioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034.
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thiruvanaikaval, Trichy 620 001.
4. The Executive Officer, Sri Varadharaja Perumal Temple, Kiliyanallur, Trichy 621 213.
5. The Board of Trustees / Fit Persons, Sri Varadharaj Perumal Temple, Kiliyanallur, Trichy 621 213. 
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
skm
WP(MD) NO. 27409 of 2025 and WMP(MD)Nos.21341 and 21343 of 2025
26.09.2025