IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:21-2-2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN Writ Appeal Nos.527,528,576 & 577 of 2010 AND W.P.(MD)Nos.Nos.3040,3517,4287 of 2010 S.Sethulingam Poosari ... Appellant in W.A.No.527 of 2010 S.Sethulingam Poosari ... Appellant in W.A.No.528 of 2010 S.K.Marimuthu Poosari ... Appellant in W.A.No.576 of 2010 S.K.Marimuthu Poosari ... Appellant in W.A.No.577 of 2010 Vs. 1.S.R.M.Ramamurthi Poosari, Chairman, Board of Trustees, S/o.S.R.Muthuraman Poosari, No.1/128, Melatheri, Ilrukkangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 4.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai. 5.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 6.S.A.Rajendran Poosari 7.R.Soundararajan Poosari 8.S.Kathiresan Poosari 9.S.Ramar Poosari, S/o.Sangaralingam Poosari 10.Hariram Poosari 11.R.Maharajan Poosari https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12.Ramar Poosari, S/o.Sangiah Poosari. Respondents 6 to 12 are Hereditary Trustees, Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkankudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. . Respondent in W.A.No.527 of 2010 1.S.A.Rajendran Poosari 2.S.R.M.Ramamurthi Poosari 3.Hariram Poosari 4.S.Kathiresan Poosari 5.R.Maharajan Poosari Respondents 1 to 5 are Hereditary trustees of Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 6.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 7.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 8.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai. 9.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 10.Ramar Poosari 11.R.Soundarajan Poosari 12.S.Ramar Poosari Respondents 12 & 13 are Hereditary Trustees, Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkankudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District .Respondents in WA.No.528 of 2010 1.S.R.M.Ramamurthi Poosari, Chairman, Board of Trustees, S/o.S.R.Muthuraman Poosari, No.1/128, Melatheri, Ilrukkangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 4.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai. 5.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 6.S.Sethulingam Poosari 7.S.A.Rajendran Poosari 8.R.Soundararajan Poosari 9.S.Kathiresan Poosari 10.S.Ramar Poosari, S/o.Sangaralingam Poosari 11.Hariram Poosari 12.R.Maharajan Poosari 13.Ramar Poosari, S/o.Sangiah Poosari. Respondents 6 to 13 are Hereditary Trustees, Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkankudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. . Respondents in W.A.No.576 of 2010 1.S.A.Rajendran Poosari 2.S.R.M.Ramamurthi Poosari 3.Hariram Poosari 4.S.Kathiresan Poosari 5.R.Maharajan Poosari Respondents 1 to 5 are Hereditary trustees of Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 6.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 7.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai. 9.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 10.S.Sethulingam Poosari 11.Ramar Poosari, S/o.Sangiah Poosari 12.R.Soundarajan Poosari 13.S.Ramar Poosari, S/o.Sangaralingam Poosari Respondents 12 & 13 are Hereditary Trustees, Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkankudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District .Respondents in WA.No.577 of 2010 W.P.(MD)No.3040 of 2010 S.R.M.Ramamurthi Poosari ..Petitioner in WP.No.3040/2010 --Versus-- 1.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034. 3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai. 4.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 5.S.K.Marimuthu Poosari 6.S.Ramakrishnan 7.S.Sethullingam Poosari Respondents 5 to 7 impleaded as per order dated 24.1.2011 made in M.P.Nos.1 & 2/10 & M.P.No.4/10 ... Respondents in WP.(MD)No.3040/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.(MD)No.3517 of 2010 1.S.Ramar Poosari 2.R.Soundararajan Poosari 3.S.Kathiresasan Poosari 4.Hariram Poosari 5.R.Maharajan Poosari 6.S.A.Rajendran Poosari ... Petitioners in WP(MD).No.3517/2010 --Versus-- 1.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034. 3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Sivakasi. 4.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 5.T.Swaminathan 6.S.Sethulingam Poosari 7.P.C.R.Chellapermal Poosari 8.S.K.Marimuthu Poosari 9.S.Ramakrishnan Respondents 6 to 9 impleaded as per order dated 24.1.2011 made in M.P.Nos.4 & 5/10 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2/10 ... Respondents in WP.(MD)No.3517/2010 W.P.No.4287 of 2010 S.Murugan @ Sakkarai Poosari ..Petitioner in WP.4287/2010 --Versus-- 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai-630 560. 3.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Irukkangudi-626 202, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District 4.Minor.R.Selvaram, D/o.late R.Marumuthu Poosari (Hereditary Trustee) duly represented by her natural Guardian and mother M.Navarathinam No.1/128-A, West Street, Irrukandudi-626 202. Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District 5.S.R.M.Ramamurthi Poosari 6.R.Soundarajan Poosari 7.S.Kathiresan Poosari 8.S.Ramar Poosari 9.Hariram Poosari 10.S.A.Rajendran Poosari RR.5 to 10 Hereditary Trustees of Arulmighu Mariamman temple, Irukkankudi,Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. RR.5 to 10 impleaded as per order dated 21.1.2011 in M.P.No.2/2010 in W.P.No.4287/2010 ... Respondents in WP.No.4287/2010 W.A.Nos.527,528, 576 and 577 of 2010 Prayer: Theses Writ Appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 23.12.2009 passed in W.P.No.19636 of 2009, W.P.No.20146 of 2009, W.P.No.19636 of 2009 and W.P.No.20146 of 2009 respectively; W.P.Nos.19636/09 & 20146/09:- Petitions presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writs of Certiorari calling for the records; 1.Pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka. No. 56655/08/a2 dt 18.9.2009 on the file of The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same (WP.No.19636/09) and; 2.pertaining to the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.292 dt.23.9.2009 on the file of The Secretary to Government, Tamil Development Religious Endowments And Information, Fort St. George, Chennai the first respondent herein and to quash the same (WP.No.20146/09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.(MD)No. 3040 of 2010 Prayer: This writ petitions is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the O.A.No.4 of 2000 dated 8.1.2010 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivakasi, the third respondent herein and to quash the same in respect of the petitioner is concerned. W.P.(MD)No. 3517 of 2010 Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the Suo Motu O.A.No.4 of 2000 dated 8.1.2010 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivakasi, the third respondent herein and to quash the same. W.P.(MD)No. 4287 of 2010 Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 29.10.2009 made by the petitioner for his appointment as the Hereditary Trustee of Arulmighu Mariamman Temple, Ilerukkankudi Village, Sattur Taluk and Virudhunagar District within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. Appearance of Counsels in W.A.No.527, 528/2010, 576, 577/2010, W.P.3040, 3517, 4287/2010 1.Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel for M/s.S. Conscious Elango,Counsel for Appellant in W.A.527, 528/10, for R6 in W.P (MD).3517/10 for R7 in WP.(MD)3040/10 2.Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan for Appellant in W.A.Nos.576, 577/10 for R5 in W.P(MD) 3040/10 For R8 in W.P.(MD) 3517/10 3.Mr.K,Alagirisamy, Senior Counsel for M/s. S.D. Ramalingam, Counsel for Respondent 1 in WA.527/10, 576/10 for R2 in WA.528/10 in WA.577/10 and for Writ petitioner in WP(MD)3040/10, in WP(MD) 3517/10 for RR5 to 10 in WP(MD)4287/10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram,Senior Counsel for RR6,8,10,11 in WA 527/2010 for RR 1 and 3 to 5 in WA 528/2010 for RR 7,9,11,12 in WA 576/2010 for RR 1,3 to 5 in WA 577/2010 5.Mrs. Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel M/s. Mahathi Chari Counsel for Respondents 7,9 in WA 527/2010 for RR 10 to 12 in WA 528/2010 for RR 8,10 in WA 576/2010 for RR 12,13 in WA 577/2010 6.Mr.K.Chandrasekar for Mr.G.R.Swaminathan Counsel for R4 in WP (MD) 3040/2010 R5 in WP (MD) 3517/2010 R3 in WP (MD) 4287/2010 RR5 in WA Nos. 527,576/2010 RR5 in WA Nos. 528,577/2010 7.Mr.V.Ragavachari, Counsel for R6 in WP (MD) 3040/2010 for R9 in WP (MD) 3517/2010 8.Mr.A.K.Sriram for Mr.J.Vijayakumaran, Advocate for R7 in WP (MD) 3517/2010 9.Mr.Michael Bharathi for R4 in WP (MD) 4287/2010 10.Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Special Govt. Pleader for (HR and CE) for RR 2 to 4 in WA 527/2010,RR 6 to 8 in WA 528/2010 for RR 2 to 4 in WA 576/2010,RR 6 to 8 in WA 577/2010 for RR 1 to 3 in WP (MD) 3040/2010 for RR 1 to 4 in WP (MD) 3517/2010 for RR 1 and 2 in WP (MD) 4287/2010 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T N.KIRUBAKARAN,J. There are four Writ Appeals namely W.A.Nos.527,528,576,577 of 2010 and three writ petitions namely W.P.(MD).Nos.3040,3517,4287 of 2010 to be decided in these matters. The above proceedings relate to Arul Mighu Irukkan Kudi Mariamman Temple, Irukkan Kudi. 2. Writ Appeals have been filed by S.K.Marimuthu Poosari and S.Sethulingam Poosari against the common order dated 23.12.2009 passed in W.P.Nos.19636 of 2009 and 20146 of 2009 and W.P.No.19636 of 2009 was filed by SRM.Ramamurthi Poosari and 5 others challenging the order dated 18.9.2009 passed by the authorities https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cancelling the election held on 23.10.2009 to elect managing trustee of the temple and for fresh election and W.P.No.20146 of 2009 was filed challenging the appointment of Mr.Sethulingam Poosari as Trustee till the election was conducted. By the said common order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and appointed an advocate Commissioner to conduct the election. 3. W.P.(MD)No.3040 of 2010 has been filed by SRM. Ramamurthi Poosari to quash the order dated 8.1.2010 in suo motu O.A.No.4 of 2000 passed by the third respondent, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department modifying the scheme. Similar relief has been sought in W.P.(MD)No.3517 of 2010 filed by Raman Poosari and 5 others. 4. W.P.(MD)No.4287 of 2010 has been filed by S.Murugan @ Sakkarai Poosari for Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 29.10.1999 for appointment as hereditary trustee of the temple. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.A.No.576 of 2010. 5. As all the matters relate to administration of Arul Mighu Irukkan Kudi Mariamman Temple, they are dealt with together by this common order. Brief facts about the background of the case are as follows: 6. Arul Mighu Irukkan Kudi Mariamman Temple, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District is a temple defined under Section 6(20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and is governed by the scheme framed by the Board of Commissioner, HR & CE, through order No.1000 dated 4.5.1935. In clause VI of the said scheme, the temple and its properties are to be administered and managed by the board of hereditary trustees by nominating and electing one among them to be the Chairman once in three years. 7. The temple was declared "excepted" by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowment, Madras by orders dated 16.8.1926 and the hereditary-ship was recognised by the said order. It is stated in the said scheme a manager was to be appointed by the Board. Subsequently in O.A.No.9 of 1955, by an order dated 31.5.1955, the scheme was modified and an executive officer was appointed by the authority. Thereafter an order dated 23.5.1977 in R.P.No.169 of 1975 was passed. It was decided by the Commissioner, HR & CE in the said order that only the eldest son of the family would be an hereditary trustee as per Primogeniture. 8. Originally, the temple was founded by one Ramaswamy Poosari, who had three sons 1) Sangan Poosari, 2) Muthuraman Poosari and 3) Sothiyan Poosari and the family of the aforesaid trustees in due course of time got expanded and due to which, the dispute arose with regard to who is to be appointed as Hereditary trustee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. As there are claims and rival claims with regard to the office of the Hereditary Trusteeship, many proceedings are initiated by the parties before various forums and they are pending. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, initiated suo motu application in O.A.No.4 of 2000 under Section 64(5) of the HR & CE Act to modify or cancel the scheme already framed and issued notice to the trustee and other interested parties and the same was pending. 10. When things stand so, the last tenure of Chairman of Board of Hereditary Trustees was to expire on 27.10.2008. Therefore, the then Chairman, issued special meeting notice dated 30.9.2008 to hold special meeting on 13.10.2008 to elect Chairman of the trustees for the period between 28.10.2008 and 27.10.2011. The chairman is to be elected by the existing 11 hereditary Trustees, who are eligible to take part in the election. 11. At that juncture, one Mr.SR.Muthuraman Poosari filed R.P.No.48 of 2008 against S.A.Rajendran Poosari, the seventh responden and S.R.M.Ramamurthi Poosari, S/o.S.R.Muthuraman Poosari, the second respondent before the third Respondent Commissioner and challenged the election notice dated 30.9.2008. The Commissioner, HR & CE, the third respondent on 7.10.2008 stayed the participation of the first respondent (SRM. Ramamurthi Poosari) as an Hereditary Trustee and by an order dated 10.10.2008, the third respondent postponed the election for 10 days and the the election could not be conducted on 13.10.2008. Subsequently also the third respondent Commissioner extended the stay of participation of Mr.SRM.Ramamurthi Poosari, the first respondent. 12. Therefore, SRM.Ramamurthi Poosari, the first respondent, filed W.P.No.9157 of 2008 challenging, proceedings in RP.No.48 of 2008 and then Chairman S.A.Rajendran Poosari, the seventh respondent filed W.P.No.9159 of 2008 for issue of necessary directions to conduct election on 23.10.2008. By common order dated 20.10.2008, Madurai Bench of this court allowed the writ petitions and the existing 11 trustees were allowed to participate in the election to be conducted on 23.10.2009 in the presence of DRO Virudhunagar. In the said order, it was made clear that the writ petitions were ordered subject to out come of the enquiry proceedings pending before the Commissioner, the third respondent. 13. Though the DRO was informed about the order, the DRO sought for postponement of election, as she did not have sufficient time. However on 23.10.2008 a special meeting was held, except Sethulingam Poosari and Ramasami Poosari other hereditary trustees participated and elected the first respondent (Mr.S.R.M.Ramamurthi Poosari) as Chairman of the Board of Trustees in the presence of Executive Officer of the temple. Hence, O.S.No.7380 of 2008 was filed by the sixth respondent (Sethulingam Poosari) before VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging the trusteeship of 7th respondent (Rajendran Poosari). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Another suit O.S.No.8178 of 2008 was filed to declare the election conducted on 25.10.2008 as null and void. Interim order obtained in O.S.No. 8178/2008 was subsequently vacated by this Court in CRP.No.4051 of 2008. 14. Thereafter, the third respondent the Commissioner, HR & CE by order dated 18.9.2009 cancelled the election held on 23.10.2008 and by another order dated 23.9.2009 appointed the sixth respondent (Mr.S.Sethulingam Poosari) as a Fit Person/Chairman of the temple. The aforesaid orders of the Commissioner were challenged by the first respondent (SRM.Ramamurthi Poosari) in W.P.No.19636 of 2009 and seventh respondent (SA.Rajendran Poosari) and 5 others in W.P.No.20146 of 2009. After hearing the parties, this court by common order dated 23.12.2009 set aside the order cancelling the Election on the ground that no notice was given to the elected chairman and further directed the election to be conducted in the presence of DRO by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this court. The appointment of the sixth respondent (Mr.Sethulingam, Poosari) as a Fit Person was also set aside. The said common order dated 23.12.2009 passed in W.P.Nos.19636 and 20146 of 2009 is being challenged in these Writ Appeal Nos.576,577 of 2010 by S.K.Marimuthu, appellant herein and S.Sethuraman Poosari the sixth respondent, by W.A.Nos.527 and 528l of 2010. 15. Subsequent to the orders passed by this court on 23.12.2009 in the above writ petitions, the court appointed advocate commissioner issued notice to all the trustees for the election to be held on 19.3.2010. Before that on 18.3.2010 these writ appeals have been filed against the common order dated 23.12.2009 passed in W.P.Nos.19636 and 20146 of 2009 and an interim order was obtained. Even before that, the third respondent, Joint Commissioner passed orders in OA.No.4 of 2000 dated 8.1.2010, which was signed on 9.3.2010. In the said order, the third respondent, determined the number of the hereditary trustees as '6' and modified the scheme. The said order dated 9.3.2010 passed in suo motu O.A.No.4 of 2000 is being challenged in W.P.(MD)No.3040 of 2010 by SRM Ramamurthi Poosari and in W.P. (MD)No.3517 of 2010 filed by S.Ramar Poosari and 5 others. 16. W.P.(MD)No.4287 of 2010 has been filed by S.Murugan @ Sakkarai, S/o.late Subbiah Poosari seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 29.10.1999 for his appointment as an hereditary trustee of the said temple contending that one Marimuthu Poosari was functioning as Hereditary Trustee and he died on 23.10.2009. In that place Murugan seeks to be appointed as hereditary trustee contending that he is the eldest son of the family. 17. The contentions of Mr.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.Sethulingam Poosari, sixth respondent, the appellant in W.A.No.527 and 528 of 2010 and R6 in W.P.No.3517 of 2010 and R7 in W.P.No.3040 of 2010 are that: a) There are only six hereditary trustees from 1926 onwards. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ b) Persons who are not eligible to be appointed as an hereditary trustees are functioning as hereditary trustees. c) As the fourth respondent, Joint Commissioner already passed orders in suo motu, O.A.No.4 of 2000 on 9.3.2010 declaring that there are only " 6 " hereditary trustees, election to the post of managing trustee has to be conducted only with collegium of "6" hereditary trustees and not with "11" hereditary trustees. d) Against the order passed in suo motu petition, an alternative remedy is available under the Statue and therefore writ petition is not maintainable. e) When the order passed in suo motu proceedings is found to be a wrong, the matter can only be remanded and till that time, no election could be conducted. f) First respondent and others (Writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.3040 and 3517 of 2010 stated in paragraphs 5,6,7 of the writ petitions that all male members are hereditary trustees and after 1977, only, the eldest son alone to become the hereditary trustee. In view of writ petitioners' contra stand, rejudicata will come into play to bar the claim of the petitioner that all sons succeed as hereditary trustees. For the above reasons, he seeks for allowing of the Writ Appeal Nos.527 and 528 of 2010 and dismissal of the W.P.(MD) Nos.3040 and 3517 of 2010. 18. The Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for SK.Marimuthu Poosari, the appellant in W.A.Nos.576 and 577 of 2010 and R5 in writ petition (MD)No.3040 of 2010 and for R8 in W.P.(MD)No.3517 of 2010 made the following submissions: a) As per law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner HR&CE (Admn) Vs. Vedantha Sthapna Sabha 2004 (6) SCC 497, all male members of the family are entitle to become trustees. b) The order passed by the Commissioner in RP.No.169 of 1975 dated 23.3.1977 is nullity. c) He referred to the memo of compromise and the consent decree passed in O.S.No.135 of 1977 to contend that about 20 persons were agreed to be the hereditary trustees and many of them are not eldest members and therefore, hereditary trusteeship cannot be restricted to eldest male member of the family alone. 19. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for Ramakrishnan-R6, in W.P.No.3040 of 2010 and R9 in W.P.No.3517 of 2010 submitted that: a) The writ petition is not maintainable, as there is a efficacious alternative remedy available under the Statue against the suo motu order. b) The order only confirmed old scheme and does not introduce anything new. c) Petitioners in W.P.Nos.3040 and 3517 of 2010 admitted that there are only "6" hereditary trustees in the written statement filed in O.S.No.54 of 2007. d) Any attempt to hold office of the hereditary trustees based on the alleged compromise made in O.S.No.135 of 1977 is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contrary to the provisions of the statute and perse illegal. He relied upon the following judgements namely: 1) 2009 16 SCC 601 (Union of India and another vs. Bilash Chand Jain and another) 2) 1998 6 SCC 643 (T.Lakshmikumara Thathachariar vs. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. and others 3) 2010 7 SCALE 428 (Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil) 4) AIR 1984 Orissa 213 (Sanyasi Jena and others vs. Mina Jena and others) Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions. 20. The contentions of Mr.K.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the Executive Officer of the temple Viz. R4 in W.P.No.3040 of 2010, R5 in W.P.No.3517 of 2010, R3 in W.P.No.4287 of 2010, R5 in all Writ Appeals are that: a) Statutory scheme cannot be replaced or modified by non- statutory communications of HR & CE authorities. b) Order passed in suo motu petition is to be set aside in the manner known to law. c) Hereditary Trustees have to be restricted only to "6" as per suo moto order d) Issuance of notice to unnecessary person is not necessary and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. He relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in commissioner HR&CE (Admn) Vs. Vedantha Sthapna Sabha 2004 (6) SCC 497. 21. The contentions of Mr.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for 7th respondent in W.P.No.3517 of 2010 are as under: a) All the male members of the family are hereditary trustees and the same is recognised by custom and usage. b) Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide about the number of hereditary trustees and take a decision regarding restriction of trusteeship except framing of scheme or modifying the scheme. c) Compromise decree passed in O.S.No.139 of 1977 recognises about 20 persons as hereditary trustees and HR & CE authorities need not to be the party to compromise and that private parties are at liberty to compromise. d) No proof was available for the Commissioner in 1977 to conclude that the eldest son of the family alone could become as the hereditary trustee. e) The said order made in RP.No.169 of 1975 deprived the right of other parties regarding trusteeship without hearing them. f) Order in RP.No.167/1975 was not acted upon/implemented by recognising the eldest member as Hereditary Trustee. g) There are instances where brothers are appointed as hereditary trustees. h) The 7th respondent in W.P.No.3517 already filed a statutory appeal in A.P.No.27 of 2010 against the suo motu proceedings in O.A.No.4 of 2000 dated 8.1.2010. i) That apart O.S.No.54 of 2007 filed by PCR Chellaperumal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Poosari (Seventh respondent in W.P.No.3517/2010) on the file of Sub-Court, Sivakasi is for declaration that all the poosaries of the temple are hereditary trustees to administer the temple and to take part in the election of managing trustee and other reliefs and the same may be directed to be disposed of at the earliest stage. 22. The contentions of Mr.K.Alagiriswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent in W.A.Nos.527 and 576 of 2010 and R2 in W.A.No.528 and 577 of 2010 and for the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.3040 of 2010, W.P.(MD)No.3517 of 2010 and for R5 to R10 in W.P.(MD)No.4287 of 2010 are as follows: a) The common order dated 23.12.2009 passed in W.P.No.19636 of 2009 and W.P.No.20146 of 2009 is only a consequential order of this Court, pursuant to the order dated 7.10.2008 passed in the earlier writ petition W.P.No.8872 of 2008. b) There was no appeal filed against the earlier order passed on 7.10.2008 and therefore, the appellant cannot maintain the present appeals against the consequential orders passed on 23.12.2009. c) This court only directed to conduct the election of the managing trustees and therefore no prejudice is caused to any of the parties by election. d) 11 hereditary trustees have been right from 1952. e) The order passed in Suo motu application No.4 of 2000 restricting the hereditary trustees to "6" is contrary to custom and usage and records. g) While modifying the scheme by the suo motu order, the Joint Commissioner, did not follow Rule 2(a) (b)(c) of "Framing of scheme Rules" by inviting objections or