ORDER Both the Writ Petitions have been filed for the same relief, namely, to quash the impugned order dated 08.07.2015 made in I.A.No.08 of 2015 in O.A.No.06 of 2015 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.13352 of 2015 claims that he is the traditional poojari of Akkaraipatti Village. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.11977 of 2015 claims that he is a native of Akkarripatti Village and the said villagers have got existing rights to perform poojas and therefore, they are the necessary parties before passing an ex-parte impugned order made in this Writ Petition. 3. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and are decided by a common order. Therefore, the averments narrated in W.P.(MD).No.13352 of 2015 are taken into consideration:- 3.1. The case of the petitioner is that he hails from Akkaraipatti village. He claims that he is a traditional poojari. Actually, there are five such families, namely, the petitioner herein, (W.P.(MD).No. 13352 of 2015) K.Murugan, A.Kalimuthu, Sadayan Chetttiar and Alagumalai Chettiar. They are rendering services for functions in all the temples in Akkaraipatti Village. In the said village, there is an ancient temple known as Arulmigu Sadayandi Swami Temple, which is located on the hill top. On the foot hills, there is a Kaaval deity known as Muniyandi Swami. The main festival for the temple is celebrated in connection with Aadi Ammavasai every year. The poojari families discharge their poojariship duties by turns. 3.2. While the matter stood thus, in the year 1986, in O.A.No.53 of 1986, the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE Administration Department, Madurai, framed a Scheme. One Thiru.M.R.Ramakrishna Pillai acted as a fit person of the temple till 1996. Due to the quarrel over the management of temple, the villagers decided to entrust the administration to the Executive Officer appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. The original Muniyasami idol on the temple in the foothill was rather small in height, it was decided to install a new and tall Muniyasami idol over the existing one. Accordingly, the respondent department granted permission and in the year 2009, a new idol was installed. Suddenly, during the festival season in the year 2014, the private respondents herein tried to assert that they also have the rights to act as festival poojaris. Accordingly, the respondent department granted permission and in the year 2009, a new idol was installed. Suddenly, during the festival season in the year 2014, the private respondents herein tried to assert that they also have the rights to act as festival poojaris. In this connection, a Peace Committee Meeting was organised on 23.07.2014, in which, it was categorically mentioned therein that as per customs, the daily poojas as well as the festival poojas would be conducted only by the traditional poojaris. Further, if there are any objections, it will have to be resolved through Court of law or by approaching of the officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, in which, the private respondents herein are also signatories. For this year, the Peace Committee Meeting was held on 10.07.2015. In the said Peace Committee Meeting, the copy of the impugned order passed by the first respondent was given to the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No. 11977 of 2015. From the impugned order, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.11977 of 2015 came to know that the private respondents, namely, C.N.Subramani, M.G.Balan and M.G.Chellam have obtained an order from the first respondent in favour of them. According to the petitioners, the impugned order is passed without notice to them. 3.3. Aggrieved over the impugned order, dated 08.07.2015, one A.Rajendran has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.11977 of 2015 before this Court, in which, this Court, by an order dated 14.07.2015, had granted interim directions to ensure proper conduct of the festival in the temple. It is alleged that on account of the interim order passed by this Court, the private respondents herein, namely, C.N.Subramani, M.G.Balan and M.G.Chellan tried to create confusion on the flag hoisting day. Further, a new nomenclature was sought to be introduced known as “festival poojari”. However, there is no such nomenclature called as “festival poojari” in the temple at any point of time. The private respondents herein who have agreed to take legal recourse during the last Peace Committee Meeting have fraudulently obtained the impugned order, in which, the poojaris and the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions, have not been arrayed as parties. Hence, the petitioner, namely, Subban Chettiyar, has preferred the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.13352 of 2015 praying to quash the impugned order of the first respondent dated 08.07.2015. 3.4. Hence, the petitioner, namely, Subban Chettiyar, has preferred the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.13352 of 2015 praying to quash the impugned order of the first respondent dated 08.07.2015. 3.4. According to the petitioners, there are only five poojaris available to perform poojas for the temple in question and the private respondents herein have no semblance of right to do poojas in the name of “festival poojaris”. In any event, the said issue can only be resolved by the Civil Court alone. Such inter se dispute cannot be adjudicated before the first respondent, under Section 151 C.P.C read with 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959. (Tamil Nadu Act 22/1959) and amended act 39/1996. (for short 'the Act'). Hence, the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, dated 08.07.2015, is liable to be quashed. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter stating that the temple in question is under the administration and supervisory control of the first respondent Department. Even though the respondents 4 and 5 are residing at Athur village, traditionally, they have been doing poojas at the time of festival and it is stated that their families alone are doing poojas at the time of festivals for the temple for the past 15 years. The Peace Committee Meeting was convened on 10.07.2015 in which the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.11977 of 2015 also participated and signed the resolution too. Suppressing the above-said fact, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.11977 of 2015. Thus, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 5. The third respondent, namely, C.N.Subramani, has filed counter affidavits stating that the Chettiyar family of Akkaraipatti village are doing poojas in the temples located inside Akkaraipatti and Sadayandi Cave temple. Further, the families of R.5 & R.6 are alone doing poojas of festivals in the temple located at foothill for the past 15 years. The respondents 5 & 6, installed the temple in question in the temple located at foothill in the year 2010 with the permission of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department for which there was no objection raised from the Akkaripatti Village. While so, the private respondents filed an application before the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai. While so, the private respondents filed an application before the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai. On consideration of the relevant documents and arguments, the first respondent has held that the private respondents are entitled to perform festivals. The said order passed is valid in the eye of law as per Section 63(e) of the Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order impugned in the Writ Petition, he has an alternative remedy either to implead himself in the Original Application preferred by the private respondents and to vacate the interim application or to file an appeal before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai, under Section 69 of the Act. Since the petitioners have not availed any of the remedies, the learned counsel for the private respondents prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 6. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned and perused the materials available on record. 7. The following are the legal submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions:- (i) Firstly, the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department , Madurai cannot adjudicate the inter se disputes under Section 151 C.P.C read with 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act,1959. Hence, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is without jurisdiction. (ii) Secondly, The petitioners who are traditional poojaris were not arrayed as respondents in the original application filed by the private respondents herein. Hence, there is violation of principals of natural justice. (iii) Thirdly, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department , Madurai, is a non-speaking order. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. 7.1. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on the following judgments of this Court:- (I) Mooka Velar Vs. Baluchami and others, reported in 1977 2 MLJ 258 . (II) N.Adithayan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and others, (2002)8 SCC 106 . (III) Thillainayagam and another vs Chidambaram Thillaiamman Devasthanam, through its Executive Officer and another reported in 2014 (1) MWN (Civil) 386. (IV) Sri Thulukka Choodamani Mariamman Temple etc. Vs. Subramania Pandaram, reported in 99 Law Weekly 607. 7.2. Baluchami and others, reported in 1977 2 MLJ 258 . (II) N.Adithayan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and others, (2002)8 SCC 106 . (III) Thillainayagam and another vs Chidambaram Thillaiamman Devasthanam, through its Executive Officer and another reported in 2014 (1) MWN (Civil) 386. (IV) Sri Thulukka Choodamani Mariamman Temple etc. Vs. Subramania Pandaram, reported in 99 Law Weekly 607. 7.2. With regard to the first legal ground made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is seen that the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.13352 of 2015 claim that they are the traditional poojari, they are also called as Nithyapadi Poojaris, whereas, the private respondents claim that they are the festival poojaris. Admittedly, there is an inter se dispute between the parties. Therefore, the status of the petitioners are different from the private respondents. When that being so, such inter se dispute cannot be adjudicated by the first respondent as per Section 151 CPC read with 63(e) of the Act. The only way available for the private respondents is to approach the civil court. Therefore, he submitted that the order of the first respondent is without jurisdiction. 8. However, it is replied by the learned counsel for the private respondents that as per Section 108 read with 63(e) of the Act, there is specific bar under the Act for filing the suits with regard to the administration or the Management of the jurisdiction. Hence, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department , Madurai, shall hold good in all respects. 9. In my considered opinion, both are claiming right to conduct poojas and festival at the temple located at foot hill during Aadi Amavasai festival. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.13352 of 2015, along with four others are the natives of Akkaraipatti Village and he belongs to five traditional poojaris. They were conducting Aadi Amavasai festivals regularly. However, the private respondents herein were allowed to install Muniasamy statue alone, since the earlier statue was a small one in the temple located at foot hill. Thereafter, the private respondents started claiming rights to conduct festival in the temple located at foot hill as 'festival poojaris'. Certainly, there is an inter se dispute between the parties as each one of them is making rival claim as against the other. Thereafter, the private respondents started claiming rights to conduct festival in the temple located at foot hill as 'festival poojaris'. Certainly, there is an inter se dispute between the parties as each one of them is making rival claim as against the other. When that being so, the first respondent cannot adjudicate the said issue under Section 63 of the Act. In this regard, a useful reference can be made from the judgment reported in Aviyur Mariamman Temple Vs. T.N.Sundaramoorthi Pillai and another reported in 1981 MLJ 392 , in which, paragraph 3 is usefully extracted below:- “3. Section 63 of the Act enables the Deputy Commissioner to enquire into and decide as to “whether a trustee holds or hold office as a hereditary trustee”. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that provision will enable the Deputy commissioner to decide whether the plaintiff in the suit held office as a hereditary trustee and therefore the decision of the Deputy Commissioner that the plaintiff was a hereditary trustee of the suit temple cannot be said to be outside his jurisdiction, and the contrary view taken by the lower appellate Court cannot legally be sustained. However, it is by now wellsettled that the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 57 (h) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 corresponding to Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959 is confined to a decision whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee. i.e.that decision should be in relation to the status of the office of trusteeship, namely, whether it is hereditary or not and that it is not competent for the Deputy Commissioner to go into the further question as to who among the competing claimants is a hereditary trustee as such a matter is not covered by the above provision. This is clear from the decisions in Krishnasami Raja Vs. Krishna Raja and Rengayya Goundar Vs. Karuppa Naicker. This is clear from the decisions in Krishnasami Raja Vs. Krishna Raja and Rengayya Goundar Vs. Karuppa Naicker. In view of the above decisions with which I am in entire agreement, the question as to who as between the rival claimants is a hereditary trustee cannot be decided by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 63(b) of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959 and if such a decision had been referred by him under Exhibit A-4 the same cannot bind the civil Court and the Civil Court has to decide that question independently on the evidence adduced by the parties. It is for this reason, the lower appellate Court has remanded the matter to the trial Court. I am of the view that the remand order is quite warranted on the facts of this case and no interference is called for. The Civil Miscellaneous appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.” The factum laid down in the said judgment would show that the rival claim as hereditary trustee cannot be decided under Section 63 of the Act. 10. In reply, the learned counsel for the private respondents once again reiterated that as per Section 63(e)of the Act, the issue in question can be decided by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department , Madurai. The said Section is usefully extracted below:- “whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter” 11. But, the reading of the above-said provision, does not speak about any inter se between the parties. Hence, in my considered opinion as to whether the petitioner or the private respondents has to conduct Adi Ammavasai festival in the temple located at foot hill is purely an inter-se dispute cited supra. As such, the same has to be decided only by the Civil Court based on the evidence that is going to be adduced by both the parties. 12. Yet another submission made by the private respondents is that as per Section 108 of the Act, there is bar to file suit in respect of administration or management of religious institutions. 13. For the above-said submission, the judgment reported in 1980 MLJ 140 , Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam Vs. Anadnavadivelu, gives a fitting answer. The relevant portion is usefully extracted below:- “10. 13. For the above-said submission, the judgment reported in 1980 MLJ 140 , Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam Vs. Anadnavadivelu, gives a fitting answer. The relevant portion is usefully extracted below:- “10. Section 69 provides that any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner may within sixty days from the date of publication of the order or of the receipt thereof as the case may be, appeal to the Commissioner and the Commissioner may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit. Section 70 provides that any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner. (i) under Subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 69, and relating to any of the matters specified in Section 63, Section 64 or Section 67; or (ii) under Section 63, Section 64 or Section 67 read with sub-section (1) (a), (2) or (4) (a) of Section 22 or under Section 65, may within by him, institute a suit in the Court may modify or cancel such order, but it shall have no power to stay the order of the Commissioner pending the disposal of the suit, Section 108 provides as follows:- “10. No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law, except under, and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act.” 11. The principle on which the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded under Section 108 of the Act are now well-settled. If the dispute raised in the suit relates to the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter for the determination of which a provision has been made in the Act the bar under Section 108 of the Act will be attracted. On the other hand, if the question arising for adjudication falls outside the scope and ambit of Section 108 of the Act, then the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the bar of exclusion of jurisdiction provided for under Section 108 cannot be invoked. 12. It is equally settled that if in a suit any matter in respect of which a provision is made under the Act had to be incidentally decided, the jurisdiction of the civil Court will not be excluded. 12. It is equally settled that if in a suit any matter in respect of which a provision is made under the Act had to be incidentally decided, the jurisdiction of the civil Court will not be excluded. To be more specific any other question, in respect of which the power is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner to decide under Section 63 of the Act, arises incidentally for consideration in a suit, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court will not be excluded. Notwithstanding Section 108 of the Act, where the dispute relating to a temple is only between two private parties and the Board is not directly concerned, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.” 14. The dictum laid down in the above stated decision would show if a dispute related to administration or management of religious institution, the law under Section 108 will apply. 15. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the claim of the petitioners with regard to the conducting of Adi Amavasai festival, the said issue will not fall within the purview of Section 108 of the Act. Hence, I am of the view that absolutely there is no bar for the private respondents to approach the Civil Court. 16. The yet another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the private respondents herein have obtained an order before the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department , Madurai, without impleading the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.13352 of 2015, namely, Subban Chettiyar and other four poojaris, who are necessary and proper parties for adjudication. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent is against the principals of natural justice. 17. It is the reply of the learned counsel for the private respondents that absolutely there is no rival claim between the Writ Petitioners and the private respondents, since the petitioners are only Nithayathiri poojaris and therefore, they have not impleaded the Writ Petitioners. 18. In my considered opinion, irrespective of the nomenclature given to the petitioners, the ultimate dispute between the parties are with regard to the conducting of the Aadi Ammavasai festival. In such circumstances, the petitioner and four other poojaris are the necessary parties for proper adjudication and without impleading them, an order has been passed by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department , Madurai, which is in violation of principals of natural justice. 19. In such circumstances, the petitioner and four other poojaris are the necessary parties for proper adjudication and without impleading them, an order has been passed by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department , Madurai, which is in violation of principals of natural justice. 19. The final submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. On that ground also, the impugned order has to be quashed. 20. For better appreciation of the facts, the order of the first respondent is usefully extracted below:- “This case having come on today, the petitioner represented, the petitioners are festival poojaries of the schedule temple and further stated they and their families alone are doing poojas at the time of festivals for the temple for the past fifteen years on that effect they have filed documents 1 to 6 along with original application. The petitioners further represented in the temple festivals are to be scheduled on forthcoming Aadi Amavasai, hence they urged for interim orders. I have perused the documents filed by thee petitioners. The documents prima facie revealed the petitioners and their families are doing poojas during festivals and also the Thakkar of the temple given notice to the present petitioners as they are festival poojaries, the photos submitted by the petitioners revealed the same. The petitioners proved the prima facie case. Further, the petitioners represented if they are not allowed to doing poojas in the festivals it will adversely affect their rights. On carefully consideration of the petitioner side documents and their arguments, the petitioners proved prima facie case. The petitioners entitled to grant injunction their favour. The petitioner prayed the appointment of Special Officer. But in this temple already executive officer in charge. He was directed to permit the petitioners and their families for hoisting the flag to keep the jewel box, taking processing the jewel box and adorn the jewels and doing poojas for all deities during Aadi Ammavasai festival in respect of the petition schedule mentioned temple as per prevailing custom and usage for the forthcoming Aadi Ammavasai festival till the disposal of the main original application. The Executive Officer shall report the same after the festival.” 20. The Executive Officer shall report the same after the festival.” 20. On the face of it, the reading of the order of the first respondent dated 08.07.2015 would show that he has passed a non-speaking order without discussing the factual aspects involved in the issue on hand. Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 21. In view of the above foregoing discussions, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the first respondent, dated 08.07.2015, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, they are set aside. Both the Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.