JUDGMENT : 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, his father during his life-time, has gifted a land to the Temple which is situated in S.No.93/7, Rajendrapuram Village, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District, measuring an extent of 33.75 cents. His father regularly conducted the pooja and other functions. He was getting his first respect and first diadem in the said Ayyanar Temple in Rajendrapuram Village, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the Temple, one Chinniah, was performing as Poosari and thereafter, his son namely Manickam and now his son Palanivel is acting as Poosari in the Temple. As a matter of fact, the Village people decided to re-construct the said Ayyanar Temple with the help of villagers. In order to reconstruct the said Temple, the said Palanivel, son of Manickam, Duraisamy, son of Muthiah and Arumugam, son of subbiah had collected a sum of Rs.9,60,000/- from the villagers without giving any receipt for the same. They had also collected a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from the nearby villagers in the name of the said temple. Also that during the festival, they have collected huge amount from the public and thereby cheated the public and the HR & CE Department. In addition, they had not submitted any accounts or receipts for the same and swindled the public money and the same was known to the Executive Officer of the Temple. But he had not taken any action against them. 4. The Petitioner had made a detailed representation on 2.5.2016 and made a request to the Respondents to take necessary action against the aforesaid persons. The main contention of the Petitioner is that till date, no action has been taken in the subject-matter in issue. 5. At this stage, this Court, at the out-set rightly points out that even though an allegation/averment of in-action was attributed on the part of the Executive Officer of the Temple, unfortunately, the Petitioner has not impleaded the said Executive Officer as one of the parties to the present Writ Proceedings/Writ Petition. 5. At this stage, this Court, at the out-set rightly points out that even though an allegation/averment of in-action was attributed on the part of the Executive Officer of the Temple, unfortunately, the Petitioner has not impleaded the said Executive Officer as one of the parties to the present Writ Proceedings/Writ Petition. Also, it is quite evident from the perusal of the typed-set of papers that the District Collector, Pudukkottai had addressed a communication, dated 17.6.2016 to the First Respondent/The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34, based on the Petition of the Petitioner, wherein, he had mentioned about the collection made and subsequently cheated and for appointment of a Temple Poosari and for taking necessary action. In fact, the District Collector, Pudukkottai had enclosed the original petition/complaint of the Petitioner, at Page No.9 of the typed-set of papers, it is lucidly and patently clear that in reference column, there is a mention of the Petitioner's letter, dated 2.5.2016 which was enclosed by the Second Respondent/The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Trichy, Trichy District, wherein an enquiry was ordered to be carried out by the Aranthangi Section Sub-Inspector of HR &CE Department. 6. It is not known as to what kind of report the Aranthangai Section Sub-Inspector of HR & CE Department had submitted to the concerned authorities of the HR &CE Department. Suffice it for this Court to point out in clear terms that the Petitioner's representation, dated 2.5.2016 addressed to the Respondents is to be considered by them in a fair, free, objective and dispassionate manner. Viewed in that perspective, this Court directs the Respondents 1 and 2 to look into the representation of the Petitioner, dated 2.5.2016 and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned speaking order on merits within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is abundantly made clear that the Respondents 1 and 2 are also to take into account the report submitted by the Aranthangi Section Sub-Inspector of HR & CE Department and to proceed further in the subject-matter in issue strictly in accordance with law and as per the Rules and Regulations made therein. 7. It is abundantly made clear that the Respondents 1 and 2 are also to take into account the report submitted by the Aranthangi Section Sub-Inspector of HR & CE Department and to proceed further in the subject-matter in issue strictly in accordance with law and as per the Rules and Regulations made therein. 7. Before parting with the case, this Court points out that the appointment of Temple Priest/Poosari is a matter to be looked into by the Second Respondent/The Joint Commissioner, HR &CE Department, Trichy, Trichy District and in this regard, it is open to the Petitioner to file necessary petition/application strictly in conformity with the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act, 1959 and the rules made therein. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.