Heard the learned counsel on either side. With their consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2.One Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poojari and another person by name Bothai Poojari @ Pandiyan were in joint management and administration of a temple known as Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple which is said to be about hundred years old. The subject matter of these writ petitions relates to Mahamuni branch. He had five wives. The family tree is as follows :

3.Periyannan @ Mahamuni executed a Will dated

16.08.1985. In his Will Periyannan @ Mahamuni had stated that Saroja Ammal during her lifetime would enjoy the rights of trusteeship and that after her demise, the children born through the remaining wives would inherit the right of Saroja Ammal in a particular proportion. After the demise of Mahamuni but during the lifetime of Saroja Ammal, Raja poojari the son born through the first wife, filed O.S No.257 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai seeking the relief of declaration that he alone was entitled to function as Poojari of the temple. In the said suit, Raja Poojari had impleaded his son Saravana Pandi, Saroja Ammal, the fourth wife Indira and Pandiarajan born through the fifth wife as defendants. The suit was disposed of on 20.06.2007 in terms of a compromise memo. But then, Saroja Ammal herself filed OS No.191 of 2008 for declaring the compromise decree as invalid and void. O.S No.43 of 2011 was filed by the fifth branch and the fourth branch for enforcing the Will dated 16.08.1985. It is stated that the suits have been dismissed for default. It is however claimed that application for restoration is pending. Just as Mahamuni had too many wives, the subject temple is also riddled with too many cases. It will be a futile exercise to cover the entire history. It is also not necessary for giving a disposal to the case on hand. What is under challenge in these writ petitions is the order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Madurai whereby it has been held that Rebello, the eighth respondent herein can officiate as Poojari in the turn meant for Saroja Ammal and enjoy the fruits thereof. WP(MD)No.18940 of 2020 is filed by one P.M.Jagadeesh Pandian, the son of Mahamuni born through the fourth wife. WP(MD)No. 18947 of 2020 is filed by one V.Aarthi, the granddaughter of Mahamuni through his fifth wife Dhanam.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and wanted this Court to quash the impugned order as one lacking in jurisdiction.

5.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the department, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7 and the learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference and wanted this Court to dismiss the writ petitions.

6.Their pointed contention is that the petitioners can very well avail the statutory remedy of revision before the Commissioner, HR&CE. They would also point out that the impugned order merely reiterates the terms of the compromise decree dated 20.06.2007 in O.S No.257 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai. According to them, the said decree was accepted and acted upon by the parties concerned and that as on date, it is still holding good. The suits filed by the contestants for nullifying the same have suffered dismissals for default and that since the said decree is still holding the field, the second respondent was justified in passing the impugned order.

7.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. By order dated 19.05.2011, the Joint Commissioner (Administration) Madurai recognized that Mrs.Saroja Ammal will have her Pooja turn from 20.05.2011 to 26.05.2011 by appointing Poojari on daily wages basis. This was cancelled on 23.05.2011. Questioning the same, WP(MD)