JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 30/06/2022 passed in W.P.(MD)No.13660 of 2022.) S.S. Sundar, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 13.06.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.13660 of 2022 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. 2. Heard Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent of both parties, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing and disposed of at the admission stage itself. 4. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: (i) The appellants belong to a particular community residing in Kumarapuram village. It appears that there is a dispute between two communities of the village in relation to administration of the temple by name Arulmigu Sri Kaliamman Temple. (ii) It is the case of the appellants that the temple is under the administration of the representatives belonging to both communities living in the village. However, the other community is not in agreement with the appellants. Hence, the appellants have filed a petition with three different prayers before the Joint Commissioner under Section 63(a), 63(b) and 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The first prayer is to declare the temple as a religious institution. The second prayer is to declare that the representatives of two communities in the village are entitled for administration of the temple. The third prayer is to frame a Scheme for administration of the temple. From the averments in the application filed by the appellants, this Court is unable to find any inconsistency in the prayers. After the petition was presented before the Joint Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner returned the petition initially on the ground that three different reliefs cannot be made in one petition. The appellants represented the same by stating that no format is prescribed for filing a petition and that as per Rule 4 of Application and Appeal Rules, reliefs can be claimed in one petition if application contained the grounds on which the reliefs are sought for. However, the Joint Commissioner once again returned the petition with following endorsement: “TAMIL” (iii) Challenging the return, the appellants filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.13660 of 2022. However, the Joint Commissioner once again returned the petition with following endorsement: “TAMIL” (iii) Challenging the return, the appellants filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.13660 of 2022. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellants/writ petitioners being aggrieved by orders of return, has to file a revision petition and the writ petition is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order dismissing the writ petition, the above writ appeal is filed. 5. This Court is unable to sustain the order of the learned single Judge for the reason that an order refusing to exercise jurisdiction by a statutory authority can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even though the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is wider. It is noted that Rules does not prohibit filing an application under Sections 63(a), 63(b) and 64 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, simultaneously in a single petition when the cause of action is same. 6. It cannot be disputed that the judicial review is permissible wherever quasi judicial authority passes an order affecting the civil rights of parties. Though the order returning the application is an irregularity and this Court can also entertain a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot refuse to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the order returning the application is one just patently illegal and is not warranted. The claim that the temple is a public temple is not inconsistent with a plea that the temple is in the administration of representatives of the communities indicating that the office of trusteeship is hereditary in the sense that the administration of temple is confined to the representatives of the communities. The petition for framing a scheme will also be appropriate as seen from the facts stated in the petition. 7. Generally speaking, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, confers power on High Courts to issue prerogative writs or directions orders for enforcing not only fundamental rights but also to ensure judicial review against the orders against which no other remedy available. Judicial and administrative power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the state is confined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Judicial and administrative power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the state is confined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While making an attempt to distinguish the scope of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 , has held as follows: “39. Though we have tried to lay down broad principles and working rules, the fact remains that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a straitjacket formula or rigid rules. Not less than often the High Court would be faced with dilemma. If it intervenes in pending proceedings there is bound to be delay in termination of proceedings. If it does not intervene, the error of the moment may earn immunity from correction. The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise selfrestraint and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where 'a stitch in time would save nine'. At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the Judge.” 8. The fact that Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India may apply to some cases is recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. The power under Article 226 is exercised for the enforcement of fundamental or other legal or statutory rights. When the is prima facie satisfied that there is a breach of fundamental or legal right of the petitioners, the writ petition need not be dismissed to avail the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The power under Article 226 is exercised for the enforcement of fundamental or other legal or statutory rights. When the is prima facie satisfied that there is a breach of fundamental or legal right of the petitioners, the writ petition need not be dismissed to avail the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The question whether the appellants are entitled to file a single petition for three different reliefs has to be answered in favour of the appellants/writ petitioners if the reliefs are interconnected and arise out of the same cause of action. If there is a dispute, the Joint Commissioner, may ultimately reject anyone of the prayers if it is inconsistent or the relief cannot be granted on merits. Returning the application at the initial stage would cause serious prejudice to parties. The petitioners are entitled to the different reliefs if they established on facts. Even alternative reliefs can be sought for. 10. In the present case, the reason for returning the application without considering the facts on merits is highly inappropriate. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere when the order of return is unsustainable in law and it is likely to affect the statutory or civil right of the petitioners. Hence, this Court is unable to sustain the view taken by the learned single Judge. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the learned single Judge, dated 30.06.2022 in W.P(MD)No.13660 of 2022, is set aside. Consequently, the impugned order of the second respondent returning the application, dated 26.05.2022, is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application filed by the appellants on merits and pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to the parties in the application filed before the second respondent. No Costs. The Registry is directed to return the original petition along with the impugned return if the original petition is filed.