JUDGMENT : T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.17507 of 2018, dated 26.04.2019. This writ appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner-Executive Officer, Arulmighu Devarajaswamy Temple, Chinnakancheepuram, Kancheepuram District, is directed against the order dated 26.04.2019 in W.P(MD).No.17507 of 2018, filed by the first respondent herein. 2. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceeding dated 21.06.2018, initiated by the second respondent-the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department (in short "the Commissioner-HR & CE Department"), Chennai, in suo motu Revision No. 4/2018/D2, as being illegal, unwarranted, without jurisdiction and ultravires and for a consequential direction to the appellant before us, to permit the first respondent-writ petitioner to perform the Archakar service through his authorized and qualified agent in Arulmighu Devarajasamy Temple Devasthanam, Chinna Kancheepuram, for the present Vilambi year. 3. The writ petition was pending and it appears that no counter affidavit was filed by the appellant, who was the second respondent or the Commissioner-HR & CE Department, who was the first respondent in the writ petition. When the matter was heard by the learned Single Bench on 26.04.2019, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-writ petitioner, on instructions from the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner has undergone a change of heart and he would rather perform the Archakar duty himself and does not want any substitute to be appointed in his place. Therefore, the learned Writ Court came to the conclusion that the very basis on which the impugned communication dated 21.06.2018 rests has become undermine and accordingly, allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings. 4. The suo motu revision initiated by the Commissioner-HR & CE Department is to consider the correctness of the order passed by the appellant dated 04.12.2017, in and by which, the appellant had recognised the request made by the first respondent-writ petitioner to permit his brother S.Krishnasamy Bhattar to perform Poojas instead of himself. The present Executive Officer of the temple one N.Thiyagarajan, has filed the present appeal. 5. We have heard Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel assisted by Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Government Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 6. The present Executive Officer of the temple one N.Thiyagarajan, has filed the present appeal. 5. We have heard Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel assisted by Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Government Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 6. Firstly, we need to point out that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for the writ petition to be entertained. We say so because, the temple where the alleged services have to be performed by the first respondent-writ petitioner is in Kancheepuram District, within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court. The Commissioner-HR & CE Department has Office in Chennai, which is also within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court. The Executive Officer of the temple obviously functions from Kancheepuram, which is, within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court. Thus, merely because, the first respondent-writ petitioner was a resident at Trichy, it cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain a writ petition. Furthermore, the alleged services to be performed by the first respondent is admittedly in Kancheepuram and therefore, no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition. 7. It is unfortunate that neither the appellant nor the Commissioner-HR & CE Department, has pointed out this aspect when the writ petition was heard. The second and more important aspect is that whether the proceedings dated 18.06.2018 is an order and whether the writ petition is maintainable against the said proceedings. 8. We have perused the said proceedings and we find that it is only a notice. The second and more important aspect is that whether the proceedings dated 18.06.2018 is an order and whether the writ petition is maintainable against the said proceedings. 8. We have perused the said proceedings and we find that it is only a notice. The Commissioner-HR & CE Department has exercised his powers under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 ('the Act' for brevity), which empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any Joint or Deputy or Assistant Commissioner or any trustee of a religious institution other than a math or a specific endowment attached to a math in respect of any proceeding under the Act not being a proceeding, in respect of which a suit or an appeal to a Court is provided by the Act, or in respect of which an application for revision has been preferred under section 21-A to the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner and is pending disposal by him to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceeding, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein. 9. Sub-section 2 of Section 21 of the Act confers power of the Commissioner to modify, annul, reverse or remit for re-consideration any such decision passed by the Joint or Deputy or Assistant Commissioner. 10. Sub-section 5 of Section 21 of the Act mandates that before any order prejudicial to any party if passed under sub-section (2) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (3), or under clause (b) of sub-section (4), a reasonable opportunity of being heard has to be afforded. 11. Sub-section 6 of Section 21 of the Act grants power to the Commissioner to stay the execution of any decision or order of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (4), pending the exercise of his powers under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or under clause (b) of sub-section (4) in respect thereof. 12. The Commissioner-HR & CE Department, by the said notice dated 18.06.2018, has pointed out that the appellant before us has permitted one S.Krishnasamy Bhattar, to perform the Poojamurai of the writ petitioner in his proceedings dated 04.12.2017. 13. 12. The Commissioner-HR & CE Department, by the said notice dated 18.06.2018, has pointed out that the appellant before us has permitted one S.Krishnasamy Bhattar, to perform the Poojamurai of the writ petitioner in his proceedings dated 04.12.2017. 13. On perusal of the order, the Commissioner-HR & CE Department was of the prima facie view that the correctness, legality, propriety of the order need to be examined and to decide, whether the order in question should be revised under Section 21(1) of the Act and therefore, deemed it appropriate to cause an enquiry into the matter by fixing the date of enquiry as 30.07.2018 at 3.00 P.M. The Commissioner is bound to do so, in terms of sub-section 5 of Section 21 of the Act, as pointed above. Therefore, the Commissioner has stated that the respondents therein and other persons having interest in the matter are required to appear either in person or by a duly authorized Advocate at the time, date and place mentioned. Further, it was informed that in default of appearance, the matter will be disposed of setting the respondents ex-parte. 14. The following are the three grounds on which the Commissioner-HR & CE Department was of the prima facie view that he is required to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 21(1) of the Act. "(1) That the Assistant Commissioner/Executive trustee of the above temple has failed to conduct enquiry before passing the impugned order. (2) That the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Executive trustee of the temple was against the provision under section 55(2) of the act which prohibits hereditary succession to any office in the Religious Institution. (3) That the Assistant Commissioner/Executive trustee has failed to verify whether the said S.Srinivasa Raghava Bhattar/3rd respondent has performed poojas previously in the temple." 15. Thus, the proceedings which were impugned in the writ petition is not an order, but it is a notice, which is in fact a statutory notice issued under sub-section 5 of Section 21 of the Act and a person aggrieved by the notice is first bound to respond the notice and place all submissions before the Commissioner-HR & CE Department. 16. In the said suo motu revision notice, the respondents 3 and 4 are the writ petitioner and S.Krishnasamy Bhattar. 16. In the said suo motu revision notice, the respondents 3 and 4 are the writ petitioner and S.Krishnasamy Bhattar. The Commissioner has also made it clear that other persons having interest in the matter are also require to appear either in person or through counsel. Thus, the writ petitioner could not have impugned the notice dated 18.06.2018, as it is not an order and the rights of parties had not been decided. Furthermore, assuming the first respondent-writ petitioner raises a contention that the order passed by the appellant herein, dated 04.12.2017, is fully justified and legal, it would be well open to the first respondent-writ petitioner to state before the Commissioner-HR & CE Department, that there is no illegality or irregularity for the correctness of the order to be considered by exercising power under Section 21 of the Act. Thus, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable, as it is wholly without jurisdiction. 17. When this writ appeal was entertained, an order of interim stay was granted. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-writ petitioner would vehemently contend that it is the first respondent who approached the appellant with the request for permitting Krishnasamy Bhattar to perform the Poojamurai on his behalf and subsequently, when the writ petition was heard, which is he thought that he alone will perform and therefore, the learned Writ Court rightly recorded the submissions made through the learned counsel and allowed the writ petition. 18. In our considered view, this submission requires to be outrightly rejected. The first and foremost issue that is required to be considered when such a request was made before the appellant, was that whether the first respondent-writ petitioner was an Archakar of Arulmighu Devasamy temple at Kancheepuram. If only that aspect had been decided, then the next aspect would be whether such an Archakar can delegate or sub-delegate his duty and whether there was a right to do so, under any of the Agamic writings or by virtue of any documents or other orders passed in any earlier proceedings. Probably this is precisely the reason for which, the Commissioner has framed three grounds in the notice dated 18.06.2018, namely, whether any enquiry was conducted by the appellant before passing the order dated 04.12.2017. Probably this is precisely the reason for which, the Commissioner has framed three grounds in the notice dated 18.06.2018, namely, whether any enquiry was conducted by the appellant before passing the order dated 04.12.2017. Secondly, whether the order dated 04.12.2017 was against the provisions of Section 55(2) of the Act, which prohibits hereditary succession to any office in the religious institution and thirdly, whether the appellant has failed to verify whether the writ petitioner has performed Poojas previously in the temples. 19. Thus, to say the least, that the then Executive Officer of the temple one Mr.M.Vijayan has abdicated his statutory duty by passing a cryptic order dated 04.12.2017. When the Commissioner has already taken up the matter to consider the correctness of such an order by issuing a notice, wherein, only a prima facie opinion had been recorded, no Writ of Certiorari could have been issued to quash the suo motu revision notice, on a concession extended by the first respondent. 20. We find from the order passed by the learned Writ Court that there is no finding as to the stand taken by the official respondents, namely, the Commissioner-HR & CE Department and Assistant Commissioner-Executive Officer of the temple. Thus, by merely recording a concession given on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition could not have been allowed. 21. The learned counsel for the first respondent-writ petitioner would further state that the Commissioner has passed the order on 25.01.2021, permitting the writ petitioner to perform the functions of Archakar and there is a writ petition in the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.No.2628 of 2021, which is pending but there is no order of stay. We are not here to examine the correctness of the order dated 25.01.2021, as it is not subject matter of the present proceedings. 22. In any event, when the writ appeal was entertained, and an order of interim stay was granted, as in the preceding paragraph, we have held that the Assistant Commissioner-HR & CE Department and the Executive Officer could not have passed a cryptic order dated 04.12.2017 and therefore, this Court is of the clear view that the Commissioner-HR & CE Department should be permitted to proceed further pursuant to the suo motu revision notice dated 18.06.2018. 23. 23. Mr.R.Kannan Bhattar has filed a petition to implead himself and the prayer for impleading was opposed, which we reject for the reason that in the suo motu revision notice, the Commissioner has made it very clear that it is not only for the respondent therein, namely, the writ petitioner Thiru.S.Srinivasa Raghavan Bhattar, Thiru.S.Krishnasamy Bhattar, but all other persons having interest in the above matter. 24. In any event, even a worshipper of the temple is entitled to maintain a writ petition and invoke the jurisdiction of the Authorities under the provisions of the Act as that is the scheme of the HR & CE Act. Therefore, the question of non-suiting Thiru.R.Kannan Bhattar on the ground of no locus standi stands rejected. 25. The next argument of Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent is that the appellant has no locus standi to file the present appeal. This argument also does not merit consideration for more than one reason. 26. Firstly, as we observed earlier, Thiru.M.Vijayan, who was the then Executive Officer of the temple abdicated his statutory responsibility by passing a cryptic order dated 04.12.2017, without conducting any enquiry. The writ appeal has been filed by the successor in office and in the grounds of writ appeal it has been specifically stated that the first respondent-writ petitioner was never an Archakar of the said temple and he is an Archakar at Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam and never did Pooja by himself till today in Arulmighu Devarajaswamy Temple, Kancheepuram. 27. Furthermore, the appellant submitted that the writ petitioner has not impleaded the necessary parties, namely, S.Krishnasamy Bhattar, Archakar of Arulmighu Devarajaswamy Temple, Kancheepuram, who is the party named in the impugned suo motu revision notice. Furthermore, it has been specifically stated that without conducting enquiry, the order dated 04.12.2017 has been passed. There are other grounds which have been raised, which we are not presently dealing with, because, it is for the Commissioner-HR & CE Department, to take a decision in the matter, pursuant to the suo motu revision notice dated 18.06.2018. 28. Thus, for the above reasons, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside. 28. Thus, for the above reasons, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed and the Commissioner-HR & CE Department, is directed to proceed further pursuant to the suo motu Revision Notice No.4/2018/D2, dated 18.06.2018; issue fresh notice to the writ petitioner, Thiru.S.Krishnasamy Bhattar, Thiru.R.Kannan Bhattar and all other persons, who may be interested in the matter and in order to ensure that the proceedings is made known to all the worshipping public as well, notice may be affixed in the prominent place in the office of the temple and such other manner as deemed appropriate to serve the purpose, for which, the suo motu revision proceeding are being taken. 29. Needless to state that when the Commissioner-HR &CE Department takes up the matter for enquiry, he shall be guided by the legal principles and take a decision on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this judgment, which have been made by the Court to set aside the order passed in the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.