ORDER : 1. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the second respondent to receive necessary charges from the petitioner and permit him to perform the Mandapa Kattalai at No. 2/52, South Raja Street, Chennimalai in Thaipoosam Festivals, as like in the earlier years, without insisting the petitioner herein to obtain the Court orders. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner's great grandfather Subburaya Gounder had created a Mutt in the name and style of Pidariyur Moondru Grama Nattu Goundergal Mutt, for the purpose of performance of Kattalai to the deity of Arulmighu Subramaniyaswamy Thirukkoil, Chennimalai. The said Kattalai is being performed during Thaipoosam festival every year, by the petitioner's family, for the past 7 decades. No third parties have any right or interest over the land or in the administration of Mutt. The Mutt was administered by the petitioner's great grandfather during his lifetime and then the petitioner grand father Kolandasamy Gounder continued to perform the same, till his death in 1986. After his demise, the petitioner's father and his brother C.K. Chinnasamy performed the Kattalai pooja. The patta and the electricity service connection also stand in the name of the petitioner's father's brother C.K. Chinnasamy. They never get any contribution from any one for performing the Kattalai Pooja. Though the petitioner's family is performing the Kattalai Pooja for the past 70 years, due to the intervention of some persons against the petitioner's family, the HR & CE Department Officials were reluctant to receive the fee and permit the petitioner's family to conduct the said Kattalai Pooja from 2011. Therefore, the petitioner's family approached this Court every year from 2011 onwards, seeking appropriate orders to permit them to conduct the Mandapa Kattalai during Thaipoosam festival. Since some persons have claimed the right over the Mutt and the property, a suit was filed by the petitioner in O.S. No. 105 of 2009, before the District Munsif Court, Perundurai, seeking for a decree for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed on 13.01.2015, granting injunction against the persons, who claimed right in the management and property of the Mutt. The said decree has become final and conclusive as it was not challenged by any other persons, so far. Now, for the forth coming Thaipooosam festival, the petitioner wants to perform the Mandapa Kattalai Pooja for the year 2018, after the demise of his uncle C.K. Chinnaswamy. The said decree has become final and conclusive as it was not challenged by any other persons, so far. Now, for the forth coming Thaipooosam festival, the petitioner wants to perform the Mandapa Kattalai Pooja for the year 2018, after the demise of his uncle C.K. Chinnaswamy. However, the official respondents refused to receive the fee from the petitioner and on the other hand, directed the petitioner to obtain an order from the Court. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. The petitioner has also filed two affidavits from one R. Shanthi and Karunambiga, who are the daughters of the said C.K. Chinnaswamy, stating that they do not have any objections for the petitioner to conduct the said Mandapa Kattalai Pooja on behalf of the family. 3. The fourth respondent who got impleaded in this writ petition claiming to be the Secretary of the Pidariyur Moondru Grama Nattu Goundergal Mutt, has stated in his affidavit as follows: The said Mutt has been in existence for more than a century and three villagers have been using the Mutt to worship Lord Arulmigu Subramania Swami of Chennimalai, whenever the idol comes down in the month of Thai (January). There has been no individual representative/Kattalaikarar to take care of the Mutt or no individual has been conferred with any title or any power to take care of the Mutt and to perform the rituals at the time of Thaipoosam festival. Since the people of the two clans reside in the village, the grandfather of the petitioner was assigned the work of paying the requisite fee to HR & CE Department every year to conduct the rituals in the Mutt. Apart from that the writ petitioner's family has no other right in respect of the Mutt. The Mutt was dedicated exclusively to perform Thaipoosam rituals in the month of January. Every year, the ritual is being conducted in the Mutt on behalf of the Hamlet of Villages and no individual is assigned with any independent role to organise or conduct the rituals of Thaipoosam. The 1st respondent and his fore fathers were not given any exclusive right to conduct the said rituals. 4. Every year, the ritual is being conducted in the Mutt on behalf of the Hamlet of Villages and no individual is assigned with any independent role to organise or conduct the rituals of Thaipoosam. The 1st respondent and his fore fathers were not given any exclusive right to conduct the said rituals. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) for R1 and R2 submitted that since there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the right to conduct the Thaipoosam Festival Pooja, they may be directed to approach the Department, by way of making appropriate application, so that the dispute between the parties can be sorted out. However, he fairly submitted that in the past years, the petitioner and his family members approached this Court and obtained orders, by filing several writ petitions to perform the Mandapa Kattalai Pooja during the Thaipoosam festival, on payment of necessary charges, and this Court granted such relief, however, by observing that they should not insist for any Mudal Mariyathai/Parivattam. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner's family is continuously doing Poojas all these years, the petitioner should be permitted to conduct the said Pooja for the present year also, with which, either the official respondents or the fourth respondent, can have any right to object the same. He also submitted that in respect of the administration of Mutt, though there is a decree of injunction granted in favour of the petitioner's family in O.S. No. 105 of 2009 dated 13.01.2015, the petitioner would also file a separate suit for declaration and pending the said suit, the right as exists today in favour of the petitioner's family, should be allowed to continue for the performance of the Mandapa Kattalai Pooja. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that though the Mandapa Kattalai Pooja can be performed by all the persons belonging to the Mutt, the petitioner alone cannot seek for any exclusive or prominent right or role in doing such Pooja thereby excluding other persons of the Mutt. Therefore, she submitted that the petitioner as well as other persons belonging to the Mutt should be permitted to conduct the Mandapa Kattalai Pooja together with equal status and rights. 7. Heard Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) appearing for R1 and R2, Mr. Therefore, she submitted that the petitioner as well as other persons belonging to the Mutt should be permitted to conduct the Mandapa Kattalai Pooja together with equal status and rights. 7. Heard Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) appearing for R1 and R2, Mr. D. Suriyanarayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R3 and Ms. R. Shase, learned counsel appearing for R4. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and perusing the materials placed before this Court as well as the respective pleadings, it is seen that though there is no serious dispute with regard to conduct of the Mandapa Kattalai Pooja by the petitioner, what is being objected before this Court, is against the so called prominence or exclusiveness said to have been claimed and enjoyed by the petitioner and his family while doing such Mandapa Kattalai Pooja, on behalf of the said Mutt. So the crux of the dispute is as to who is prominent before Lord Sri Subramaniyaswami or who is not. 9. At this juncture, it is to be noted by both parties that The God will never be partial in bestowing His blessings on the people either by noticing as to who is performing the pooja and who is not or who is standing in the first row or who is standing in the last row. What is required to get His blessings is only a pure and clean mind with unconditional love and affection towards the mankind and to the rest of the world. Merely doing poojas by spending huge money however with polluted mind loaded with arrogance or ill-feelings or evil thoughts or hatredness will serve no purpose, as it may, at the best, be for the satisfaction of such person alone and certainly, not to the satisfaction of The Almighty. It is to be noted at this moment, the golden sayings of the great saint and Maharishi Sidha Agathiyar. xxx xxx xxx It means, if our mind is pure, clean and perfect, we don't need to recite any mandra. Only when our mind becomes pure, clean and perfect, recitation of mandra will then become pure, clean and perfect. It is to be noted at this moment, the golden sayings of the great saint and Maharishi Sidha Agathiyar. xxx xxx xxx It means, if our mind is pure, clean and perfect, we don't need to recite any mandra. Only when our mind becomes pure, clean and perfect, recitation of mandra will then become pure, clean and perfect. Therefore, both the parties herein must realise that enjoying the prominence or the exclusiveness by somebody in doing the pooja before The God is immaterial, while the blessings of The God will be bestowed on each and everyone, who is pure, kind, polite, humble and leading the rectitude life. 10. Now coming to the present case, a perusal of the recent order passed by this Court in respect of the Mandapa Kattalai Pooja in the year 2017 in WP. No. 1784 of 2017 dated 27.01.2017 would show that the petitioner's uncle namely C.K. Chinnaswamy was permitted to do the said Mandapa Kattalai Pooja during the Thaipoosam festival in the year 2017, on payment of necessary charges to the Executive Officer of the said Temple, however, without insisting for any Mudal Mariyathai/Parivattam. Therefore, this Court is of the view that when the fourth respondent is also not disputing the claim of the petitioner to perform such Pooja, however, without seeking for any prominent or exclusiveness in doing so, the same order passed in the year 2017, shall be passed in this writ petition also, so that the so called interest of both the parties will not be prejudiced in any manner. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, as follows: (a) The second respondent is directed to receive necessary charges from the petitioner for performing the Mandapa Kattai Pooja during the Thaipoosam festival of the year 2018 and allow him to perform the said Kattalai Pooja along with other members of the Mutt, without providing any Mudal Mariyathai or Parivattam either to the petitioner or to any other members of the Mutt. (b) If any one of the party is claiming such right or any exclusive right, it is open to them to approach the HR & CE Department, by filing appropriate application or to file Civil Suit before the competent Court of Law. 11. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.