ORDER : Since the issues involved in all the three Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, by consent of the learned counsel on either side, the Civil Revision Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. C.R.P.(NPD).No.809 of 2015 arises against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.421 of 2012 in O.S.No.30 of 1946 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam (Scheme Court). 3. C.R.P.(NPD).No.80623 of 2016 arises against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.498 of 2013 in O.S.No.30 of 1946 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam (Scheme Court). 4. C.R.P.(NPD).No.80627 of 2016 arises against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.414 of 2013 in O.S.No.30 of 1946 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam (Scheme Court). 5. The revision petitioner in all the three revision petitions is the Managing Trustee of the Nagur Darga. The respondents filed applications in I.A.Nos.421 of 2012, 498 & 414 of 2013 for issuance of Roulaw Pass, which would enable to sit around the Tombs of Periya Andavar and Chinna Andavar and make prayer during the performance of the ceremony of adorning holy sandals on the Tombs of Periya Andavar and Chinna Andavar. The revision petitioner filed their counter stating that more than 200 Roulaw passes were issued during the period of Management and there was a crowd with suffocation and unconsciousness together with vomit among the pilgrims. Due to over crowd in the place, according to the revision petitioner, there were more chances for the inmates to get giddiness and other uncomfortable which ultimately cause hindrance to the safety and smooth functioning of adorning holy sandal ceremonies. 6. The Scheme Court, after taking into consideration the case of both parties, directed the revision petitioner/Managing Trustee to consider the representations of the respondents herein with regard to the issuance of Roulaw Passes for sitting around the Tombs of Periya Andavar and Chinna Andavar during the period of function of adorning holy sandals upon the Tombs of Periya Andavar and Chinna Andavar in Nagore Dargah and for making prayers. 7. Mr. S. Thirumavalavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that pursuant to the orders of the Scheme Court, the Managing Trustee had issued Roulaw Passes to the respondents for the past four years. 8. Mr. 7. Mr. S. Thirumavalavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that pursuant to the orders of the Scheme Court, the Managing Trustee had issued Roulaw Passes to the respondents for the past four years. 8. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that since the Scheme Court had not clarified with regard to the consideration of the representations, it would be proper to remit the matter back to the Scheme Court for fresh consideration with a direction to the Scheme Court to decide the matter, on merits and in accordance with law, with regard to the issuance of Roulaw Passes. 9. Mr. S. Thirumavalavan and Mr. A. Muthukumar, respective learned counsels appearing for the respondents also agreed that the impugned orders passed by the Scheme Court in I.A.Nos.421 of 2012, 498 & 414 of 2013 may be set aside and the matters may be remitted back to the Scheme Court for fresh consideration. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Scheme Court may also be directed to take into consideration all the relevant materials produced by either of the parties and decide the matter afresh. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.Nos.421 of 2012, 498 & 414 of 2013 in O.S.No.30 of 1946 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam (Scheme Court) are set aside. The matters are remanded to the Scheme Court for fresh consideration. Both the parties are at liberty to produce all the materials before the Scheme Court in support of their contentions. The Scheme Court is directed to decide the matter with regard to issuance of Roulaw Passes, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.