JUDGMENT Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. Nothing under sky is invulnerable to litigation and it seems Almighty Himself is no exception to this universal phenomena. 2. The present litigation is an example of this fact, involving dispute between two schools of Srivaishnavism (Thengalais and Vadagalis), putting Lord Devarajaswami of Kancheepuram (Presiding Deity of one of the 108 ‘Divyadesas’) in continuous bitter litigation. 3. Though it is believed that Lord Devarajaswami laid down across ‘Vegavathi’ river and saved the Temple City Kancheepuram from inundation because of the anger of Goddess Saraswathi. He seems unable to resolve the dispute between the two warring sects of Srivaishnavism. Or, He may be onlooking and enjoying the dispute as part of His ‘Jagannatakam’ with His ‘Jagannatakam’ with His usual, ever fascinating and blissful ‘Childvilasam’. As a result, both the Sects continue to engage in sectarian rivalry and the present litigation is outcome of one of such rivalries. 4. Facts, limited to the extent of understanding the present lis, are that a Scheme decree was passed by the District Court, Chenglepet, in a Suit filed under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, in O.S. No.11 of 1907, regarding periodical stock taking, for the receipt and custody of the offerings and the income of the temple and also for the audit of accounts. However, in the said Decree, since the District Judge refused to frame and Rules for election of Trustees, appointment of mediators and for filling up of vacancies in the office of the Trustees, an Appeal in A.S. No.212 of 1909 was preferred before this Court. Pending Appeal, a Receiver was appointed. Ultimately, by the judgment dated 26.4.1912 K.A. Veeraraghava, Thatthachariar v. T. Srinivasa Thatthachariar, 1912 (23) MLJ 134 , a Division Bench of this court, while framing a Scheme, provided for the appointment of a Board of Supervision for the Devasthanam comprising of three members (i) one Vadagalai Vaishnava, who is not a member of the Thathachari family (ii) one Thangalai Vaishnav, and (iii) one Smartha or Madhwa. The Scheme also provided for the appointment of five Trustees, three of whom shall be from the Eastern Branch and two shall be from the Western branch of the family of Koti Kanyakandanam Sri Thathadasikar, envisaging the tenure of office of the trustees as five years and also provided for the appointment of each of such person, by rotation, as Executive Trustee for a period of one year, so that all the five will hold office for one year and the Board of Supervision was entrusted with the powers of supervision over the Trustees. 5. Since the said Scheme did not solve the dispute, fresh Suit was filed in O.S.No.1 of 1928, before the District Court, Chinglepet, praying to modify the Scheme. By that time, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1927 came into force and therefore, the Board was added as the 36th Defendant in the Suit. Ultimately, by the judgment dated 21.12.1933, the District Court, held that the existing Scheme, as framed by the Division Bench of this Court (in A.S. No.212 of 1909) was not working satisfactorily and therefore, the Suit was decreed, modifying the Scheme, to the extent that the Board of supervision appointed by the Scheme framed by the Division Bench would no longer be necessary and that the powers of supervision conferred on that Board stood vested by statute upon the Hindu Religious Endowment Board. This judgment of the District Judge, Chinglepet, was again challenged before this Court in A.S.No. 175 of 1934. By the judgment dated 17.1.1941, a Division Bench of this Court, modified the earlier Scheme and provided for the appointment of only two honorary trustees, instead of five, who were to be elected by and from the lineal male descendants of Sri Thatha Desikar and one Executive Trustee, who should be a Smartha or Madhwa Brahmin to be appointed by the Hindu Religious Board. 6. After commencement of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (later named as Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE initiated proceedings in O.A. No.99 of 1961, for amending the Scheme, so as to bring it in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Challenging the said action, W.P.No. 2468 of 1969 was filed before this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the same by the order dated 18.8.1969, which was confirmed upto the level of Supreme Court. 7. However, thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, by his proceedings dated 8.10.1973, dropped the proceedings initiated by him in O.A. No.99 of 1961 on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to modify the scheme. This order was challenged by way of a statutory Appeal in A.P. No.153 of 1974 and the Commissioner of HR & CE, by his order dated 8.10.1973, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. 8. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner initiated fresh enquiry, after renumbering the proceedings (in O.A. No.99 of 1961) as O.A. No.95 of 1978 and he issued a notice dated 25.6.1982, proposing to modify the existing Scheme. As per this draft Modified Scheme, the administration of the temple shall vest with the Board of Trustees and the Board shall comprise of five Trustees – one from Thathacharis, one from Thangalai sect, one non – Brahmin Vaishnavaite, one Smartha or Madhwa Brahmin and one Harijan and the Board was also to have an Executive Officer appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 9. This Draft Modified Scheme and the notice dated 25.6.1982, issued by the Deputy commissioner were challenged in W.P.No.5121 of 1982 by one T.Lakshmikumara Thathachariar, belonging to the Eastern Branch of Sri Koti Kanyakadanam Thathadesikar family. Since the said Writ Petition was dismissed, an Appeal in W.A.No.122 of 1987 was filed. The said T. Lakshmikumar Thathachariar, during pendency of the said Writ Appeal, also filed W.P.No.2082 of 1987, challenging the vires of Sections 64(5) & 18 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Since this Writ Petition was dismissed, he filed W.A. No.141 of 1987. Both W.A. No. 122 of 1987 and 141 of 1987 were taken up together and dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, by the judgment dated 2.5.1997 reported in T. Lakshmikumara Thathachariar v. The Commissioner, HR & CE and others, 1997 (2) LW 849 which on challenge before the Supreme Court in C.A. Nos. 4570 & 4571 of 1998, also met the same fate of dismissal on 2.9.1998. 4570 & 4571 of 1998, also met the same fate of dismissal on 2.9.1998. This judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in T. Lakshimikumara Thathachariar v. The Commissioner, HR & CE and others, 1999 (1) LW 640. 10. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, initiated fresh suo motu proceedings in O.A. No.21 of 1999 under Section 64 (5) (b) of the Act to modify the existing Scheme of administration of the temple and issued a notice dated 5.3.2000 to all person having interest in the matter, for the purpose of conducting enquiry. The Joint Commissioner, thereafter, passed orders on 11.6.2003. At this stage, the present Writ proceedings came to be filed – W.P.No. 23049 of 2003 for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in O.A. No.21 of 1999 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department and quash the same and W.P.No.23050 of 2003 has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus, for a direction to the First Respondent / HR & CE to pass final orders in O.A.No.95 of 1978. 11. It was the contention of the Joint Commissioner/HR & CE that the then existing Scheme had become unsustainable to carry out the intentions and objects fully in the present change of circumstances and therefore, he decided to redraft the Scheme and for that purpose, initiated suo motu proceedings in O.A. No.21 of 1999. At this stage, according to the Joint Commissioner, the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No. 23049 of 2003 has taken out interim applications in Civil Appeal Nos. 4570-4571/1998 before the Honourable Apex Court with a prayer to complete the proceedings in O.A. No.95 of 1978 and also for a direction to the Joint Commissioner not to take any further steps in respect of suo motu O.A. No.21 of 1999 and to quash the proceedings in O.A. No.21 of 1999 and both the applications were dismissed on 13.11.2000 by the Honourable Apex Court, but this fact has been suppressed in these Writ proceedings and therefore, the present Writ Petitions in these Writ Proceedings and therefore, the present Writ Petitions are vexatious and liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of facts rejudicating the issues. 12. Both the Writ Petitions were taken up together by the learned Single Judge and passed a common order on 24.10.2009. 12. Both the Writ Petitions were taken up together by the learned Single Judge and passed a common order on 24.10.2009. The findings of the learned Single Judge, are extracted here under for easy understanding: “44. In the case on hand, there is an existing scheme, settled earlier by this Court. Therefore, appointment to the Board of Trustees, cannot be made from amongst persons whose names find a place in the list sent by the District Committee. But the obligation imposed under Section 47 (1) (c), upon the Joint Commissioner, to constitute a Board comprising of not less than 3 members and not more than 5 members, one of whom should be member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, is not whittled down or obliterated by Section 7-A (5). Consequently, the Scheme proposed by the impugned order should necessarily provide for a composition in tune with Section 47 (1) (c). But in the impugned proceedings, there is no provision for one of the Trustees to be a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. On the contrary, in the Draft Modified Scheme, proposed in the previous proceedings O.A. No.95 of 1975, there was a provision for one among the 5 Trustees to be a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. 45. Therefore, it was actually the Scheme proposed in the previous proceedings that was in tune with the provisions of the Act, while the scheme proposed in the impugned proceedings is not. Hence, the impugned proceedings are violative of the statutory provisions, though the professed object of the impugned proceedings is to bring the Scheme in tune with the provisions of the Act. 46. In view of the above, the Petitioners are entitled to succeed and the Writ Petitions are liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 11.6.2003 in O.A. No. 21 of 1999 are set aside. The Joint Commissioner is directed to issue notice, within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order to the parties, calling upon them to file objections to the draft modified scheme. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 11.6.2003 in O.A. No. 21 of 1999 are set aside. The Joint Commissioner is directed to issue notice, within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order to the parties, calling upon them to file objections to the draft modified scheme. The parties will have 15 days time form the date of service of notice on them, to file their objections to the draft modified scheme proposed by the proceedings dated 25.6.1982 in O.A. No.95 of 1978 (which got confirmed upto the Apex Court), within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. After final orders are passed and a Board of Trustees constituted with eligible persons to the Board, it is always open to the parties as well as the department, to work out their remedies, if the scheme that comes into force, ever becomes unworkable at a later point of time. There will be no order as to costs.” 13. It is against the order that both these Writ Appeals are preferred by the Appellants. 14. It is to be mentioned that at the time of admission of both these Appeals on 25.2.2010, the First Bench of this Court, by way of interim order, permitted the enquiry, as contemplated in Para No.46, of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, to proceed, and the Joint Commissioner was directed to pass final orders on the draft modified scheme. However, it was also directed that, such an order (to be passed by the Joint Commissioner) shall not be given effect to until the Appeals are heard and decided. 15. Pursuant to the above direction of the First Bench of this Court, the Joint Commissioner passed orders on 12.10.2012. Admittedly, against such an order passed by the Joint Commissioner, an Appeal remedy is available to the aggrieved party, by way of Appeal before the Commissioner, under Section 69 of the Act. Therefore, we refrain ourselves from going into various arguments advanced on either side, since such contentions can very well be raised before the Commissioner in the Appeal proceedings for his appreciation and decision. 16. Therefore, we refrain ourselves from going into various arguments advanced on either side, since such contentions can very well be raised before the Commissioner in the Appeal proceedings for his appreciation and decision. 16. Even though it has been argued before us that this Court may decide the issue, without directing the parties to go before the statutory Authorities, to save the litigation time, we refrain from entertaining such a plea, in view of the fact that we do not want to circumvent the scheme of things propounded under the Act, which provides for efficacious alternate remedy. Given also the fact that no party is allowing the litigation to die down or reach its logical conclusions, under one pretext or other, we do not see any reason to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to go into the merits of the issue, as, in our considered view, it will only prolong the legal battle under technical grounds by either of the warring sects. Accordingly, both these Writ Appeals are disposed of, directing the parties to avail the efficacious alternate remedy available to them under Section 69 of the Act. In the event of such an Appeal being preferred by any of the aggrieved party, the Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai is directed to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within sixty days form the date of filing of the Appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.