JUDGMENT : Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. Being aggrieved over the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Appellants have filed the present Writ Appeals. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the Executive Officer of the temple, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the H.R & C.E. Department. 3. Facts made available herein would reveal that the writ petitioner is said to be the Madathipathi of Sreelasri Chidambara Swamigal Madam, Kannapattai, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, as a successor/nominee of the previous Madathipathi/his father under a registered Will dated 05.02.2001, as per the Scheme. According to the writ petitioner, there is no criminal case nor any other case against him before this Court or any other Court, disqualifying him from functioning as Madathipathi. However, the H.R & C.E. department has not recognised him as Madathipathi. On account of the same, he was unable to function as Trustee of the temple. Hence, on the basis of the registered Will, he made a representation dated 07.01.2013, permitting him to stay at Periamadam and do regular poojas, but, by an order dated 01.02.2013, the said representation was rejected by the H.R. & C.E. Department on the ground that under Section 26(h) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, in view of the pending cases against him in the police department as well as in the High Court, he was disqualified to act as trustee of the temple. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition in WP No. 6248 of 2013, to quash the same and consequently direct the Commissioner, H.R & C.E. department, Chennai to consider his request and pass orders, so as to enable him to become pontiff of the Sreelasri Chidambara Swamigal Madam, Kannapattai, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram District. 4. It is further revealed that on 14.03.2013, while entertaining the said writ petition, this Court has granted an interim order, which reads as follows:- "There shall be an order of stay of the order passed by the first respondent therein dated 01.02.2013 so as to enable the petitioner to perform daily poojas and other performance as Madathipathi of Periya Madam alone is concerned." However, the Executive Officer of the temple has refused to permit the writ petitioner to enter into the office of the Mutt and take the pooja materials. As a result, the writ petitioner was unable to perform the poojas as per the customary practice. Hence, he filed a petition in M.P. No. 3 of 2013 in WP No. 6248 of 2013 to modify the order passed in MP No. 1 of 2013 dated 14.03.2013, so as to enable him to enter into the office of the Peria madam functioning at Chinnamadam and take the pooja materials for performing the poojas as Madathipathi. Thereafter, by order of this Court dated 13.02.2014, M.P. No. 3 of 2013 came to be allowed in the following terms:- "Therefore, the order passed by this Court dated 14.03.2013 is modified for the limited purpose of permitting the petitioner to make use of the Peria madam functioning at Chinnamadam for taking the pooja materials for performing the poojas of the Madam as Madathipathi and also keeping them in the respective places. This should be facilitated by the fourth respondent (Executive Officer) without any difficulty. The petitioner should cooperate for carrying out this direction smoothly." Aggrieved over the said modification order, the present writ appeals came to be filed. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, if the order impugned herein is allowed to sustain, the same would amount to virtually entertaining the prayer made in the writ petition itself, that too, without hearing the respondents therein. 6. We find merit and acceptance in the contention so made on the side of the appellants. A perusal of the records would show that the counter affidavit has already been filed in the writ petition, which is pending before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order impugned herein and remand it to the learned Single Judge for passing fresh orders. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 13.02.2014 made in M.P. No. 3 of 2013 in W.P. No. 6248 of 2013 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for passing a fresh order. As the counter affidavit has already been filed, the learned Single Judge is requested to dispose of the writ petition viz., WP No. 6248 of 2013, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing both sides, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is left open to the parties to raise all their contentions before the learned Single Judge. It is left open to the parties to raise all their contentions before the learned Single Judge. Till the disposal of the writ petition, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date. 8. Both the writ appeals are allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.