JUDGMENT :

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.17507 of 2018, dated 26.04.2019.

This writ appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner-Executive Officer, Arulmighu Devarajaswamy Temple, Chinnakancheepuram, Kancheepuram District, is directed against the order dated 26.04.2019 in W.P(MD).No.17507 of 2018, filed by the first respondent herein.

2. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceeding dated 21.06.2018, initiated by the second respondent-the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department (in short "the Commissioner-HR & CE Department"), Chennai, in suo motu Revision No. 4/2018/D2, as being illegal, unwarranted, without jurisdiction and ultravires and for a consequential direction to the appellant before us, to permit the first respondent-writ petitioner to perform the Archakar service through his authorized and qualified agent in Arulmighu Devarajasamy Temple Devasthanam, Chinna Kancheepuram, for the present Vilambi year.

3. The writ petition was pending and it appears that no counter affidavit was filed by the appellant, who was the second respondent or the Commissioner-HR & CE Department, who was the first respondent in the writ petition. When the matter was heard by the learned Single Bench on 26.04.2019, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-writ petitioner, on instructions from the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner has undergone a change of heart and he would rather perform the Archakar duty himself and does not want any substitute to be appointed in his place. Therefore, the learned Writ Court came to the conclusion that the very basis on which the impugned communication dated 21.06.2018 rests has become undermine and accordingly, allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings.

4. The suo motu revision initiated by the Commissioner-HR & CE Department is to consider the correctness of the order passed by the appellant dated 04.12.2017, in and by which, the appellant had recognised the request made by the first respondent-writ petitioner to permit his brother S.Krishnasamy Bhattar to perform Poojas instead of himself. The present Executive Officer of the temple one N.Thiyagarajan, has filed the present appeal.

5. We have heard Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel assisted by Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Government Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

6. Firstly, we need to point out that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for the writ petition to be entertained. We say so because, the temple where the alleged services have to be performed by the first respondent-writ petitioner is in Kancheepuram District, within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court. The Commissioner-HR & CE Department has Office in Chennai, which is also within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court. The Executive Officer of the temple obviously functions from Kancheepuram, which is, within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court. Thus, merely because, the first respondent-writ petitioner was a resident at Trichy, it cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain a writ petition. Furthermore, the alleged services to be performed by the first respondent is admittedly in Kancheepuram and therefore, no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition.

7. It is unfortunate that neither the appellant nor the Commissioner-HR & CE Department, has pointed out this aspect when the writ petition was heard. The second and more important aspect is that whether the proceedings dated 18.06.2018 is an order and whether