JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records connected with the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A5/4461/2021 dated 20.12.2021 on the file of the respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal consequently direct the fourth respondent to conduct fresh peace meeting by receiving the petitioner's documents and providing opportunity to the petitioner.)

1. Mr. S. Manoj Immanuel, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this virtual Court.

2. Mr. C. Satheesh, learned Government Advocate, who accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 (official respondents) is also before this virtual Court.

3. Captioned main writ petition can be disposed of by making an order which is not adverse to respondents 5 to 8 (private respondents) and by putting an adequate safety valve in place qua private respondents. Therefore with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, captioned main writ petition is taken up.

4. One Vellaikannu had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P(MD) No.22432 of 2021 seeking issuance of mandamus qua Joint Commissioner of of 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department' (hereinafter 'TNHR&CE Dept' for the sake of convenience and clarity) to permit Vellaikannu and his brothers to perform Pooja Punaskaram in the months of Karthigai and Maasi in 'Shri Chinnaiya Swamy Temple situate in Thenmapattu Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District' (hereinafter 'said Temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

5. The aforementioned writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court in and by an order dated 17.12.2021 which reads as follows :

'In the captioned writ petition a public temple which goes by the name Shri Chinnaiya Swamy Temple situate in Thenmapattu Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District [hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity] is the nucleus. Tussle between the writ petitioner and third respondent [private respondent] regarding performing poojas in said temple for specified months is the central theme of the lis.

2. Ms. A. Banumathy, learned Counsel on record for writ petitioner is before me, Mr. T. Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 [official respondents].

3. From the case file placed before me and the submissions made it comes to light that the captioned writ petition turns on a narrow compass and it can be disposed of by making an order which is not adverse to third respondent [private respondent] and by providing adequate safety valve qua rights of the third respondent. Therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel on both sides main writ petition was taken up.

4. Learned Counsel for writ petitioner contends that said temple was originally founded by one Karuthadayan common ancestor of writ petitioner and third respondent. Further short facts are that said Karuthadayan had two wives viz., Chinnapillai and Kathiraye; that the writ petitioner is a descendant qua Kathiraye branch and the third respondent is the descendant qua Chinnapillai branch; that the writ petitioner has the honour of performing poojas in said temple in the Tamil months of Karthigai and Maasi whereas the third respondent has the honour of performing poojas in said temple in the Tamil months of Vaikasi and Avani; that the writ petitioner is now being prevented by the third respondent in performing poojas in the two months in which writ petition has been performing poojas in said temple is the complaint.

5. Learned State Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of official respondents, on instructions submits that this is a case of tussle between writ petitioner and third respondent both being descendants of a common ancestor and a peace committee meeting is to be called for by the third respondent [jurisdictional Revenue Tahsildar] and that the same will be convened within one [1] week from today i.e., on or before 24.12