Mandamus and temple custom cannot be unsettled in writ jurisdiction where religious practice and factual disputes remain unresolved.

A writ of mandamus to extend darshan beyond 48 days was refused because the dispute depended on contested questions of Agama rules, temple custom, usage, and religious practice. The Court held that such factual and faith-based issues could not be resolved in writ proceedings and required adjudication by a competent civil court. It further noted that mandamus lies only where a legal duty and corresponding legal right are shown, and that courts should not interfere with established religious custom in the absence of an enforceable legal right. The petitioners were therefore denied the requested relief, and the temple's practice was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus directing extension of the darshan period beyond 48 days and whether the Court should interfere with the temple's custom and usage regarding immersion of the deity.

Analysis: The claim turned on disputed questions regarding Agama rules, custom, usage, and the practice followed by the temple authorities. The materials placed before the Court showed that the temple administration, supported by the archakas, sthanikars, and the Thennachariya Dharishana Sabha, had taken the view that darshan was limited to 48 days and that immersion thereafter was required according to established practice. The Court held that such disputed questions of fact could not be decided in writ proceedings and that the issue whether the deity should be taken out from the pool and for how many days it should be kept for darshan could only be adjudicated by a competent civil court. The Court also held that a mandamus cannot be claimed as of right unless a legal duty and corresponding legal right are shown, and that matters of faith and religious custom should not be interfered with in the absence of a legally enforceable right.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the requested mandamus, and the Court declined to interfere with the temple's religious custom and usage.

---