JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 from interfering, evicting the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner shop situated at ward No.21, KM 40/10 Paruvakudi-Kovilpatti-Ettayapuram- Vilathikulam-Vembar road in Kovilpatti, under the guise of encroachment on temple.) 1. This order will dispose of the captioned main writ petition. 2. Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 02.02.2022 which reads as follows: 'Immovable property in the form of 'land admeasuring 630sq.ft or thereabouts (35ft. length X 18ft. breadth) comprised in T.S.No.28, Block No.24, Ward C in Ettayapuram Valivuroad (tisT Nuhl;) in Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District' (hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience and clarity) is the subject matter of captioned main writ petition. 2. This Court is informed that said property is situate on the southern side of Door No.169. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the third respondent (State Highways Authority) had granted permission to her to occupy 3.05 m X 2.50 m (7.36 sq.mt area) at km 40/10 left side at Paruvakudi, Kovilpatti, Vilathikulam, Vembar Road' for installing an Aavin Milk Booth (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity). It is the case of the writ petitioner that she is running an Aavin parlour in said land from 2015 onwards and her husband (Mr.Ramar) is running a two wheeler mechanic shop by putting up a temporary TIN shed in said land as he is said to have been evicted from the rented building in which he was running the mechanic shop. 4. The original permission of Highways Authority qua said land was granted on 07.08.2015 vide letter No. 462/2015/IDO2 (page 24 of typed set of papers). A perusal of 07.08.2015 proceedings brings to light that permission was granted under Section 26 of the 'Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'TN Highways Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity). The permission has been granted in Form-A as per Rule 6 of 'Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003' (hereinafter 'TN Highways Rules' for brevity). The aforementioned permission given by the Highways Authority is for one year which elapsed on 06.08.2016 and thereafter vide letter dated 11.06.2019 bearing letter No.462/2015/IDO2 there appears to be a further permission for one more year. The permission has been granted in Form-A as per Rule 6 of 'Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003' (hereinafter 'TN Highways Rules' for brevity). The aforementioned permission given by the Highways Authority is for one year which elapsed on 06.08.2016 and thereafter vide letter dated 11.06.2019 bearing letter No.462/2015/IDO2 there appears to be a further permission for one more year. Though 11.06.2019 letter says that one year from the date of agreement, this Court is informed that date of letter itself is the date of agreement and therefore, one year elapsed on 11.06.2020. Writ petitioner submits that thereafter she has applied for renewal from 28.08.2019 to 27.08.2021 and the same is pending. In any event 28.07.2021 has also elapsed. Therefore, as of today there is no permission from the Highways Authority qua said land. 5. In the aforementioned circumstances, the writ petitioner was visited with a notice dated 27.11.2021 from the second respondent alleging that the writ petitioner has encroached upon said property and calling upon the writ petitioner to remove the encroachment and also putting the writ petitioner on notice that failure to comply within 15 days will lead to proceedings under Section 78 of 'The Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959)' (hereinafter 'TN HR&CE Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity). 6. Captioned writ petition has been filed with a mandamus to restrain the respondents 1, 2 and 4 from dispossessing the petitioner qua said land. 7. To be noted, the two proceedings of Highways Authority referred to supra being proceedings dated 07.08.2015 and 11.06.2019 do not throw any light on survey number. The reason is in 07.08.2015 letter, the survey number reads as many as 111/231 but it is handwritten and interpolated In 11.062105 letter no survey number has been mentioned. 8. Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4. On instructions from respondent No.1 [Assistant Commissioner, 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu' (hereinafter 'TN HR&CE Dept.' for the sake of convenience and clarity)] learned State Counsel submitted that the second respondent has already written a communication dated 07.01.2022 regarding site inspection and report for removal of encroachment qua said property. On instructions from respondent No.1 [Assistant Commissioner, 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu' (hereinafter 'TN HR&CE Dept.' for the sake of convenience and clarity)] learned State Counsel submitted that the second respondent has already written a communication dated 07.01.2022 regarding site inspection and report for removal of encroachment qua said property. Mr.M.Muthugeethayan, learned private counsel who accepted notice on behalf of second respondent (Executive Officer of 'Arulmighu Poovanatha Swamy Temple, situate in Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District' [hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity] submitted that said property belongs to said temple. The extent mentioned in the letters of State Highways authority is only 7.36 sq.mt. which translates to 79.22 sq.ft whereas the said temple is concerned 630 sq.ft or thereabouts. Learned private counsel went on to add that the writ petitioner is a rank encroacher who has occupied and put up a sweet stall, fruit shop, juice centre and workshop and is exploiting of temple land i.e., said property. Learned counsel, on instructions, submits that proceedings under Sections 78 of TN HR&CE Act would be initiated. 9. Learned counsel for writ petitioner very fairly submitted that his simple prayer before this Court is the writ petitioner should not be dispossessed de hors due process of law. 10. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned State Counsel requested for a short accommodation to get instructions from the third respondent (State Highways Authority) and revert to this Court. Request acceded to. 11. Registry to show the name of counsel for respondents (State Counsel and Private Counsel) in the next listing. 12. List in the Admission Board i.e., motion list tomorrow. 13. List on 03.02.2022.' 3. To be noted, short forms and short references used in the previous proceedings dated 02.02.2022 will continue to be used in the instant order also (obviously for the sake of convenience and clarity). To be noted, the aforementioned proceedings of this Court dated 02.02.2022 shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. 4. To be noted, short forms and short references used in the previous proceedings dated 02.02.2022 will continue to be used in the instant order also (obviously for the sake of convenience and clarity). To be noted, the aforementioned proceedings of this Court dated 02.02.2022 shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. 4. Pursuant to paragraph 10 of the aforementioned earlier proceedings, learned Special Government Pleader submits that he has got instructions from the third respondent and as per his instructions, said land admeasuring 7.36 sq.mts or thereabouts i.e., 79.22 sq.ft was subject matter of a permission but that permission which was originally given on 07.08.2015 was for one year, thereafter there was one more permission but that also elapsed on 11.06.2020. Thereafter there has been no further permission. In this view of the matter, the occupation of said land by the writ petitioner and others (as of today) is without permission. Be that as it may, learned State Counsel, on instructions submits that adjacent lands belonging to said temple i.e., inter alia said property have been encroached upon. This has triggered the communication dated 27.11.2021 from the second respondent, is learned Counsel's say. 5. As regards the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that his simple prayer is that writ petitioner should not be dispossessed de hors due process of law (captured in paragraph 29 of earlier proceedings) it was submitted by learned State Counsel that it may not be restricted to Section 78 of TN HR&CE Act alone as remedy is available under Section 79-B of TN HR&CE Act also. Learned State Counsel adverting to sub-section (3) of Section 79-B submits that the power of Commissioner of TN HR&CE Dept. has now been delegated to inter alia Trustees, Fit persons and Executive Officers also “OTHER LANGUAGE” etc.,). The proceedings of Commissioner, TN HR&CE Dept. in this regard is dated 17.12.2021 bearing reference OTHER LANGUAGE and the same as placed before this Court is as follows: 6. has now been delegated to inter alia Trustees, Fit persons and Executive Officers also “OTHER LANGUAGE” etc.,). The proceedings of Commissioner, TN HR&CE Dept. in this regard is dated 17.12.2021 bearing reference OTHER LANGUAGE and the same as placed before this Court is as follows: 6. Learned counsel for Second respondent, adverting to paragraph 8 of the earlier proceedings submits that as against the sweet stall, fruit shop, juice centre and workshop, as it is the case of the writ petitioner that writ petitioner has not indulged in any subletting, it may be left open to the second respondent to initiate proceedings inter alia in accordance with the TN HR&CE Act by issue of independent notices. This is a matter which goes without saying and it is obvious. It is left open to the second respondent to proceed within the legal perimeter of TN HR&CE Act. 7. The above answers the anxiety of the writ petitioner qua dispossession de hors due process of law. It is made clear that if proceedings under Sections 78 and 79-B of TN HR&CE Act is initiated, the rights of the writ petitioner to defend the same within the perimeter of TN HR&CE Act is protected. 8. As this Court is parens patriae qua temple properties in the light of A.A.Gopalakrishnan's case [A.A.Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors.,] reported in (2007) 7 SCC 482 , this Court conscious of the fact that a directive is being given in a mandamus filed by the writ petitioner who is an alleged encroacher, issues a directive in its parens patriae jurisdiction to the effect that the second respondent and the first respondent will do well to commence proceedings inter alia under Sections 78 and 79- B of TN HR&CE Act and or other provisions within the legal perimeter of TN HR&CE Act as expeditiously as their business would permit. The proceedings so commenced shall also be concluded as expeditiously as their business would permit. 9. Captioned writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned WMP is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.