Judgment :- As the facts leading to all the writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in his ref.No.AP 20/2003 (D2), AP 22/2003 (D2), AP 21/2003 (D2), respectively, dated 09.02.2004 and quash the same and pass appropriate order. 3. The petitioner, K.A.Murugappan, submits that his father late K.Ayya Subramania Mudaliar was declared as Hereditary Trustee for Arulmighu Muppadathi Amman Temple, Tirunelveli District in O.A.No.14/1995 by order dated 21.03.1999. Similarly, the petitioners father case K.Ayya Subramania Mudaliar was declared as Hereditary Trustee of Viswanatha Swamy Temple in O.A.No.15/1995, 21.03.1997 and also to another temple Muppidathi Amman Temple, Vijayaragha Mudaliar Chatram in O.A.No.16/95, dated 21.03.1997. Subsequently, his father Late K.Ayya Subramania Mudaliar died on 24.12.2000, leaving behind his wife K.Ayya Thaiyalnayaki Ammal, the petitioner, 2 daughters and 2 sons as his legal heirs. The petitioners mother succeeded to the office of the Hereditary Trusteeship and from the date of succession to the office of the Hereditary Trusteeship, she has been looking after the administration of the temple till her death on 11.06.2001. After the death of the petitioners mother, the petitioner, his brother K.A.Shanmugavel and sister M.Kumadavalli were functioning as administrators of the temple. The other two legal heirs, viz., S.S.Visalakshmi Ammal and K.Velapan were not interested. Therefore, the petitioner, K.A.Shanmugavel and M.Kumudavalli filed M.P.No.5/2001 in O.S.No.16/95 under Section 54(1) of the H.R. & C.E. Act to record them as hereditary trustees. All of a sudden, the Joint Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. / 2nd respondent herein has passed an order dated 10.11.2003 in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.11470/02-1 A1, appointing the 3rd respondent, the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Ramaswamy Thirukoil and Group Complex, as the fit person, pointing out that the hereditary trusteeship has not been filled up. After the said order was served upon the petitioner on 20.11.2003 by showing in the order that the petitioner is Managing Trustee, the petitioner has filed the revision petition before the 1st respondent along with application seeking stay of the operation of the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 10.11.2003. The case of the petitioner in the revision petition before the 1st respondent was that for appointing the 3rd respondent as fit person, no notice was given. The case of the petitioner in the revision petition before the 1st respondent was that for appointing the 3rd respondent as fit person, no notice was given. Therefore, without notice and without affording an opportunity, the appointment of 3rd respondent as fit person to the temple of the petitioner, is in violation of principles of natural justice. But, the 2nd respondent, it appears, has passed the order, rejecting the request to grant any relief therein. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.35963/2003 before this Court. This Court by disposing of the above said writ petition, directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the main petition. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal has been filed before the 1st respondent for confirming the appointment of the 3rd respondent as fit person. Therefore, the petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent and the same was also rejected by confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The 1st respondent, while disposing of the appeal, has directed the petitioner to establish his rights before the Civil Court, since there was a confusion whether the temple was a Samadhi. The 1st respondent having seen that there was no unity among the legal heirs to succeed to the office of Hereditary Trusteeship, appointed the 3rd respondent/Executive Officer, as the fit person and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish their rights, so as to fill up the permanent vacancy in the office of the Hereditary Trusteeship, which dispute arises within the scope of Section 54(3) of the H.R. & C.E. Act. Subsequently, it appears that the petitioner also filed Civil Suit in O.S.No.433/2003 before the learned Sub Judge, Tirunelveli and the said suit was also subsequently decreed in favour of the petitioner. As against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, the respondent also filed appeal. Admittedly, the appeal is also pending. 5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner along with two others have filed three miscellaneous petitions in M.P.Nos.5 to 7 of 2001 under Section 54(1) of the Act 22/59, before the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admin. Department, Tirunelveli, seeking to recognise them as Hereditary Trustees of the above said temple. Admittedly, the appeal is also pending. 5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner along with two others have filed three miscellaneous petitions in M.P.Nos.5 to 7 of 2001 under Section 54(1) of the Act 22/59, before the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admin. Department, Tirunelveli, seeking to recognise them as Hereditary Trustees of the above said temple. But, the deceased trustee, Ayya Subramania Mudaliar, had three sons and two daughters and all of them are entitled to succeed to office as Hereditary Trustees of the temples. In such a situation, the writ petitioner, without consent and knowledge of the other legal heirs, tried to occupy the office of trusteeship with a view to enjoy the valuable properties of these temples. Therefore, the dispute, with regard to the rights of the management, among the legal heirs of the deceased, has to be adjudicated only by the Civil Court. Admittedly, till date, the petitioner has not filed any suit to establish his rights. Whileso, the said dispute between claimants to succeed to the office of Hereditary trusteeship cannot be decided under Section 54(3) of the Act. Therefore, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a Civil suit to establish his claim to succeed to the office of the Hereditary trusteeship. Therefore, the 1st respondent/Commissioner, has come to the conclusion that no order is necessary in the appeal. 6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has already moved an application under Section 54 (1) of the H.R. & C.E. Act to the 2nd respondent, and therefore, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, which is pending now, along with application of other legal heirs. It is made absolutely clear that in the event of any dispute between legal heirs, the 2nd respondent is entitled to pass appropriate order directing the legal heirs to establish their rights by approaching the Civil Court and, thereupon, the claim of the petitioner be considered. It is needless to mention that if there is any dispute among the legal heirs, the 2nd respondent should consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with Section 54(1) of the Act. It is needless to mention that if there is any dispute among the legal heirs, the 2nd respondent should consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with Section 54(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the matters within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and before deciding the pending application, the 2nd respondent has to give reasonable opportunities to the legal heirs, and thereafter, the said petitions will be decided in accordance with law. 7. With the above observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No Costs.