JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarifiled Mandamus or any other writ or direction or order in the nature of writ, calling for records pertaining to the 1st respondent in R.P.No.113/2023 D2 dated 18.01.2023 and quash the same and impose the heavy cost on 2nd respondent.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed to call for records pertaining to the 1st respondent in R.P.No.113/2023 D2, dated 18.01.2023 and quash the same and impose heavy cost on the 2nd respondent. 2. The grievance of the Writ Petitioner that the 2nd respondent has no right whatsoever to file a Revision Petition before the 1st respondent, namely, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Administration Department, Chennai since there is a power conferred under Section 21 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 to take suo motu revision by the Commissioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has no locus standi to prefer the Revision Petition before the 1st respondent. Further, due to the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension and he was not given any job from the year 2019, therefore, he filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Administration Department, Vellore, the 3rd respondent herein in A.P.No.2 of 2022. The 3rd respondent, by order, dated 21.12.2022 held that since the petitioner under deemed suspension, appropriate enquiry to be conducted against him in departmental proceedings and also directed the petitioner to reinstate into service. Challenging the same, now the Revision Petition has been filed by the third party/2nd respondent. 3. Now, the Writ Petition itself is filed only on the ground that the third party/2nd respondent has no locus standi to file Revision Petition before the 1st respondent. This Court is of the view that this Writ Petition is not maintainable on the ground that when the Commissioner is having power under Section 21 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 to call for any records even the proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner, it cannot be said that the Revision Petition filed by the third party is not maintainable. 4. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. 5. 4. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. 5. If the petitioner has any grievance, liberty is granted to the petitioner to agitate the same before the Commissioner/1st respondent in Revision Petition. Let the Commissioner/1st respondent to decide the Revision Petition filed by the 2nd respondent by giving opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.