ORDER: Petitioner is the Ubayadar of Arulmighu Devaraja Swamy Thirukkoil, Kancheepuram. The representation of the petitioner made before the Executive Trustee of the said temple viz., the third respondent, to stop garlanding the two Thathachariars with those garlands adorned on the deity on the fourth day festival of Panguni Uthiram every year, instead of honouring the petitioner as Ubayadar, was rejected by his proceedings dated 21.7.2001 of the third respondent, against which the petitioner preferred a revision in R.P.42/2001-D2 before the second respondent under Sec.21 of the H.R. & C.E., Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The second respondent, in his proceedings dated 14.3.2002, dismissed the above revision and confirmed the orders of the third respondent dated 21.7.2001, the operative portion of which reads as follows: "Nowhere in the records of the temple particularly in the register of mamul namahs or the orders passed by the appropriate authorities and the Courts, it has been mentioned that the rights or garland honours which are customarily extended to the Thathachariars shall be done so only in their capacity as trustees and not otherwise. Hence, being a Trustee is not a precondition for the Thathachariars to receive the honours. The petitioner admits in his reply to the counter statements that the Ubhayadarar comes into the picture only recently. If so, from where he could derive a right to object the honour shown to any particular person or persons, which has been in practice long prior to the induction of this Ubayadarar? This legal proposition is not explained by the petitioner, even though it is admitted by the petitioner that the honours to the Ubhayadarar is only a quid pro quo. It is also admitted by the petitioner that as a person, Ubhayadarar is not entitled to any honour. While so, as a person he is also not entitled to question the authority of the temple from following the conventionally established, invariably accepted and uniformly continued, reasonable practices obtained during festivals. As the impugned order passed by the first respondent is based on an established practice, supported by lawful instructions from the appropriate higher authorities, it does not require any interference whatsoever. It is, therefore, hereby confirmed. As the petitioner has failed to prove his contentions, either legally or on facts, by material evidence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly hereby dismissed." 3.1. It is, therefore, hereby confirmed. As the petitioner has failed to prove his contentions, either legally or on facts, by material evidence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly hereby dismissed." 3.1. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14.3.2002 of the second respondent, the petitioner preferred a further revision before the first respondent under Section U4 of the Act. In the said revision, the petitioner also filed an interim petition in April, 2002, seeking a personal hearing to substantiate his right, which is based on custom and usage. 3.2. The first respondent, of course, after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, by its order dated 3.2.2003, dismissed the revision observing as follows: 3.3. Hence, the above writ petition, seeking to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(ID) No.22, Dated 3.2.2003 and quash the same and forbear the third respondent his men, servants or anybody claiming through him for garlanding two Thathachariars on the Panguni Uthiram 4th day Festival of every Tamil Year with the garlands offered by the petitioner as Ubayadar for adorning the deities after procession to Mirror Mandapam. 4. Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing of the petitioner invited my attention to the orders of the first respondent referred to above and submits that the reasons weighed by the first respondent in dismissing the revision are unsustainable in law. Even though the first respondent had rightly observed that the right claimed by the petitioner is based on custom and usage, the first respondent erred in holding that the said right is not of a civil nature and hence the order dated 3.2.2003 passed by the first respondent is untenable as apparent on the face of the record. 5. Mr.D.Nanda Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 is unable to sustain the impugned government order dated 3.2.2003 of the first respondent. 6. Mr.T.L.Rammohan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, contends that the fourth respondent is entitled for the garland honour in preference to the ubayadarar viz., the petitioner, as per the custom and usage, which is in force for time immemorial. 6. Mr.T.L.Rammohan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, contends that the fourth respondent is entitled for the garland honour in preference to the ubayadarar viz., the petitioner, as per the custom and usage, which is in force for time immemorial. However, inviting my attention to the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., dated 15.3.1952, Mr.T.L.Rammohan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent submits that without prejudice to the existing rights of the fourth respondent Thathachariars for the first honour, the deity may be adorned with an extra garland, which may be honoured to the Ubayadarar, after honouring the fourth respondent, Thathachariars. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. 8.1. The Government, in the impugned Government order, is of the opinion that the right claimed by the petitioner based on the custom and usage, is not of civil nature, which in my considered opinion, is not tenable in law, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8.2. Even according to the fourth respondent, the right conferred to the petitioner for garland honour was recognised since 1952, as evident from the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, Coimbatore dated 18.3.1952, which reads as follows: "OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, H.R.&C.E., COIMBATORE Memo No.1597/51-2, ABM, Dated 18.3.1952 Sub:Sri Devaraja Swami Temple-Kancheepuram Town and Taluk- Chingleput District-Garland honours to Thathachariars and Ubayakar-Orders passed. Read: 1. Letter No.260/1361 dated 17-11-51 from the Executive Trustee. 2. This Office Memo No.1597/51-1 ADM dated 27.1.52. 3. Letter No.406/1361 dated 26-2-52 from the Executive Trustee. 4. Letter dated 27-2-52 from the Honorary Trustees. Without prejudice to the existing rights of Thathachariars to the garland honour, the deity may be adorned with an extra garland which may be given to the Ubayakar. Sd/-xxxx for Deputy Commissioner To: 1. The Executive Trustee Sri. etc., as in reference 2. Copy to Sri R.Varadathathachariar, B.A., and 3. Copy to Sri P.Sudarsanathathachariar, Honorary Sri etc., as in reference." 8.3. This aspect of the case was not gone into or appreciated by the Government as well as the third respondent. 9. Sd/-xxxx for Deputy Commissioner To: 1. The Executive Trustee Sri. etc., as in reference 2. Copy to Sri R.Varadathathachariar, B.A., and 3. Copy to Sri P.Sudarsanathathachariar, Honorary Sri etc., as in reference." 8.3. This aspect of the case was not gone into or appreciated by the Government as well as the third respondent. 9. At this point of time, both the petitioner and the fourth respondent have entered into a compromise with respect to the garland honour on the fourth day of Panguni Uthiram festival in the Arulmighu Devarajaswamy Thirukkovil, Kancheepuram, and also filed a joint memo dated 26.3.2004 to that effect, which reads as follows. "THE WRIT PETITIONER AND THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ENTERED INTO A COMPROMISE UNDER THE FOLLOWING TERMS OF THE JOINT MEMO DATED 26.3.2004. (1) The petitioner Ubayadarar shall offer three identical garlands, which are similar in size and flowers, to Lord Vararaja Perumal of Arulmighu Devaraja Swami Thirukkoil, Kancheepuram, with the approval of the Executive Trustee, the third respondent. (2) Once the Ubayadarar offers the abovementioned garlands, the same admittedly belongs to the deity and no one shall claim any individual right over the same. (3) All the three garlands shall be adorned on the shoulders of the deity. (4) After the festival (fourth day of Panguni Uthiram), out of the three garlands, the members of the fourth respondent Sabha shall be honoured with the first two garlands and the members of the petitioner’s (ubayadarar) family shall be honoured with the third garland and such honour shall be done at the same time and at the same place. (5) The above terms of agreement shall be applicable only to the parties of this joint memo." 10. Even though the impugned order dated 3.2.2003 of the first respondent is liable to be set aside, as the reason weighed by the first respondent in passing the impugned order is not tenable in law, and therefore, the matter has to be remitted back to the first respondent, there is no need for the same, in view of the subsequent developments referred to above. Hence, except to record the above joint memo dated 26.3.2004 and to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the joint memo of compromise dated 26.3.2004, no further orders are required in this writ petition. No costs.