JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1577/2021/A2 dated 13.09.2021, issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same as per-se illegal.) 1. Captioned main writ petition pertains to appointment of nonhereditary trustees to 'Arulmighu Swami Chidambareswarar Vagaiyara and Ainthu Veetu Swami Temple, situate in Chettiyapathu Village, Thiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District' (hereinafter 'said temple' for the same of convenience and clarity). 2. Appointment of non-hereditary trustees to said temple is governed by a scheme settled by third respondent vide orders dated 03.06.2009 made in O.A.NO.4 of 1999. The most critical part of this order i.e., scheme that has been settled by the third respondent i.e., that part of the scheme which is most relevant for the case on hand is contained in paragraph 4 which has four sub-paragraphs therein and the same reads as follows: 4(a) xxxxxxxxx 3. This Court is informed that the aforementioned scheme is operating and that non-hereditary trustees are hitherto being appointed periodically. This Court notices that writ petitioners 1 and 2 are respondents 3 and 5 respectively in above proceedings i.e., O.A.No.4 of 1999. This Court is also informed that hitherto 30 pangaligal families used to hold a common meeting (referred to a General Body Meeting) and propose names but some differences arose inter se 30 families leading to a cleavage and two groups holding two separate meetings, one on 24.06.2019 and other on 30.06.2019, resulting in one of them approaching this Court vide W.P.(MD)No.11204 of 2020, which was disposed of by another Hon'ble Single Judge on 09.09.2020 and this order reads as follows: 'Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the subject matter pertains to the appointment of trustees for the petition mentioned temple. The administration is governed by a scheme. 3. The petitioner's grievance is that even though the proposal had been submitted by the 3rd respondent quite some time back, the 2nd respondent has taken no decision. This is the cause of action for filing this writ petition. 4. The administration is governed by a scheme. 3. The petitioner's grievance is that even though the proposal had been submitted by the 3rd respondent quite some time back, the 2nd respondent has taken no decision. This is the cause of action for filing this writ petition. 4. When the matter was taken up for admission, the learned Special Government Pleader brought to my notice that the 2nd respondent had already informed the 3rd respondent vide communication bearing Na.Ka.No.40030/2019/A2 dated 24.07.2019 instructing him in this regard. It is seen that the trustees have to be elected from among the 30 families. It appears that these families are divided into two groups. One group held their general body meeting on 24.06.2019 while the other group conducted their general body meeting on 30.06.2019. Since two rival groups independently convened the general body meetings, it is difficult for the 2nd respondent to finalise the issue. Therefore, the 2nd respondent had called upon the 3rd respondent to prevail upon the 30 pangalies to convene a common general body meeting and elect the trustees. 5. If such a common general body meeting is convened and proposals are submitted, the HR & CE department is directed to finalise the list of trustees as earlier as possible without any delay. 6. With these direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.' (underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis, highlight and for ease of reference) 4. The above order is referred to in the paper publication made by respondents 3 to 5, which reads as follows: “IMAGE” 5. Though the opening sentence in the aforementioned notification talks about the judicial order and the aforementioned notification is the fulcrum on which captioned matter turns, the same has not been placed before me by the learned counsel for writ petitioner. Therefore, I located the soft copy (on my device) from the official website and while hearing the learned counsel for writ petitioner in the admission board, post accepting notice, learned State Counsel placed before me a hard copy. 6. Be that as it may, Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan, learned counsel for writ petitioners, who is before me adverting to the proceedings 'dated 13.09.2021 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1577/2021/A2' (hereinafter 'impugned proceedings' for the sake of convenience and clarity) made by the third respondent submitted that for the first time respondents are insisting on xxxxxxx (Genealogical tree chart) and xxxxxx (permanent residence certificate) 7. 6. Be that as it may, Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan, learned counsel for writ petitioners, who is before me adverting to the proceedings 'dated 13.09.2021 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1577/2021/A2' (hereinafter 'impugned proceedings' for the sake of convenience and clarity) made by the third respondent submitted that for the first time respondents are insisting on xxxxxxx (Genealogical tree chart) and xxxxxx (permanent residence certificate) 7. Learned counsel submits that there is no authenticated geonoligcal tree chart much less there has been any periodic updation of the same. 8. Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of the all the five respondents had the benefit of fifth respondent instructing him in Court. Owing to the narrow compass on which the captioned matter turns, the main writ petition was taken up with the consent of both sides. 9. A careful perusal of the narrative thus far, makes it clear that the third respondent had to seek clarification from the second respondent owing to the cleavage that has occurred between the members of the 30 pangaligal families and the directive given by Hon'bel Judge vide aforementioned 09.09.2020 order. 10. This Court is informed (on instructions) by learned State Counsel that a meeting is scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e., 09.12.2021 at 11.00 a.m., in the Munmandapam (xxxxxx) of said temple for the purpose of trying to prevail upon 30 pangaligal families to convene one meeting (referred to as 'general body meeting') as directed by Hon'ble Judge in the aforementioned previous order. In other words, this is only a meeting to try and prevail upon 30 pangaligal families to convene a common meeting, is learned State Counsel's say (on instructions). 11. As regards permanent residence certificate, this Court is informed by learned State Counsel that the same was being insisted in previous appointments also. I do not want to go into the question of whether it was insisted in the pervious appointment or not but I am of the considered view that it is imperative that the permanent residence certificate is insisted upon as this pertains to administration of said temple and it is necessary that the appointees reside within a reasonable radius qua said temple so that an appointee can attend to the administration of said temple. This leaves us with the genealogical tree. 12. This leaves us with the genealogical tree. 12. Proposal of appointing trustees if at all and if that be so can happen only if a common meeting is held as directed by the Hon'ble Judge. To be noted, this has also been made clear in paragraph 5 of Hon'ble Judge's aforementioned previous order. In other words, there is going to be no selection of / election to non-hereditary trustees tomorrow. It is only a meeting to prevail upon the 30 pangaligal families to convene a common meeting. 13. If there is any dispute regarding whether a particular individual belongs to the 30 pangaligal families the conditions which have to be satisfied are to be decided by respondents 3 to 5 and that question is left open. In other words, I am not interfering qua impugned proceedings. 14. Let the meeting for the aforementioned limited purpose proceed tomorrow. 15. No further orders are required. Captioned writ petition is disposed of with the above directive/observations. Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous petition is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.