ORDER : C.SARAVANAN, J. The Petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the 3 rd Respondent/Regional Joint Commissioner in his proceedings in O.A.No.35 of 2021. 2. By the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024 in O.A.No.35 of 2021, the3 rd Respondent/Regional Joint Commissioner has set aside Order dated 12.11.2012 bearing Pro.RC.No. 12001/2007 of the 4 th Respondent/ Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple Tiruchendur, Tuticoirn District. The operative portion of the Impugned Order reads as under: 3. The Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024 in O.A.No.35 of 2021 of the 3 rd Respondent/Regional Joint Commissioner is pursuant to an earlier Order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the 2 nd Respondent/Commissioner of HR&CE Department in R.P.No.320 of 2017-D2. 4. By the aforesaid Order dated 08.01.2019, the 2 nd Respondent/Commissioner of HR&CE Department had directed as follows:- “To decide the above issues inter alia, a full fledged enquiry ought to be conducted by examining witnesses, marking relevant documents by following procedures laid down under CPC. This forum, while exercising revisional jurisdiction is not in a position to conduct a full fledged enquiry as per CPC. Hence it is considered appropriate to direct the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli to conduct Sue-motu enquiry under Section 63(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli is directed to initiate Suo-motu enquiry under Section 63(e) of the Act by issuing notice to all the parties concerned including the petitioner herein. The Joint Commissioner should conduct enquiry as contemplated under the holding of Inquiring Rules framed under Section 116(2) of the HR&CE Act and pass orders within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order The Revision petition is hereby disposed of with the above directions.” 5. R.P.No.320 of 2017-D2 was filed under Section 69 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 by one S.Ayyappan, the Petitioner therein, against an Order dated 06.03.2017 of the 3 rd Respondent, Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the HR&CE Department, Tirunelveli in A.P.No.3 of 2015 filed under Section 55(4) of the HR & CE Act, 1959. 6. R.P.No.320 of 2017-D2 was filed under Section 69 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 by one S.Ayyappan, the Petitioner therein, against an Order dated 06.03.2017 of the 3 rd Respondent, Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the HR&CE Department, Tirunelveli in A.P.No.3 of 2015 filed under Section 55(4) of the HR & CE Act, 1959. 6. The said S.Ayyappan, had earlier filed A.P.No.3 of 2015 before the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE, Tirunelveli, questioning the decision of the 4 th Respondent, Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the 5 th Respondent Temple, whereby the recommendation of the then Fit Person, namely Kottai Manikandan dated 16.07.2012 was accepted by the 4 th Respondent on the same day whereby the members of the Petitioner Sabha were allowed to carry on the duty of Thirumeni Kaval inside the premises of the 5 th Respondent Temple as was done in the past. 7. The case of the Petitioner Sabha before this Court is that the Petitioner Sabha has already filed O.S.No.151 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Tiruchendur (formerly O.S.No.23 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Thoothukudi.) for a declaration that the members of the Petitioner Sabha numbering about 2000 persons, namely Thriswathanthirargal or Sthalathars were a denominational community of the 5 th Respondent Temple and are therefore entitled to officiate certain rituals within the premises of the 5 th Respondent Temple, namely Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District. 8. The rights in respect of which the Petitioner Sabha claims are in respect of the following called as Thirumeni Kavalpani: 9. The case of the Petitioner Sabha is that there are religious texts viz. Puranam, which have recognized the rights of Thriswathanthirargal since 1915 and that they are responsible for conducting rituals in the Temple and for the Deity namely Thirumeni Kavalpani. 10. It is further submitted that earlier certain proceedings were initiated against some of the persons, who were part of the aforesaid group and that they have been dealt with departmentally. 11. In this connection a reference is made to a proceeding initiated against one Krishna Iyer in 1969 and one Harisubramaniam Iyer in 1986. It is submitted that in the year 1992, when the 5 th Respondent Temple was taken over by the HR & CE Department, the Thirumeni Kavalpani was handed over to the staff appointed by the HR&CE Department at the Temple and was restored on 12.11.2012. 12. It is submitted that in the year 1992, when the 5 th Respondent Temple was taken over by the HR & CE Department, the Thirumeni Kavalpani was handed over to the staff appointed by the HR&CE Department at the Temple and was restored on 12.11.2012. 12. The Resolution of the Fit Person on 16.07.2012 was approved by the 4 th Respondent, Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer on 12.11.2012. It is submitted that the Petitioner Sabha was registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, in the year 1996 and was given Registration No.12/96. 13. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned proceeding pursuant to the directions of the 2 nd Respondent, Commissioner is without jurisdiction and Section 42 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 is of no relevance, particularly when the matter is subjudice in O.S.No.151 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Tiruchendhur. 14. That apart, the rights of the members of the Petitioner Sabha referred to as the Thriswathanthirargal have been recognized in terms of Jeyanthinadhar Mahathmiam, which is a religious text, which recognized the rituals in the Temple. It is submitted that the entire proceeding in the Temple is Aagamic as per the Agamas and therefore, the rights of the Petitioner Sabha cannot be diluted by the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024. 15. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 1 st to 3 rd Respondents would submit that the impugned proceeding is well within the four corners of law and does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024 has been passed under Section 63(e) of the HR & CE Act, 1959 and is an appelable Order in terms of Section 69 of the HR & CE Act, 1959. 16. That apart, attention was drawn to the decision of this Court rendered in W.P.No.1088 of 2023 (S.Krishnasamy Bhattar Vs. The Joint Commissioner and others) dated 12.07.2023 . A specific reference was made to Para Nos. 17 to 20 and 23 from the aforesaid decision, which reads as under: “17. 16. That apart, attention was drawn to the decision of this Court rendered in W.P.No.1088 of 2023 (S.Krishnasamy Bhattar Vs. The Joint Commissioner and others) dated 12.07.2023 . A specific reference was made to Para Nos. 17 to 20 and 23 from the aforesaid decision, which reads as under: “17. A reading of above provision would make it clear that any person aggrieved by any order passed by 1 st respondent in a proceedings initiated under Section 63 (e) of HR and CE Act, which falls under ChapterV of the said Act is appeallable to the Commissioner of HR and CE. 18. Section 70 of HR and CE Act reads as follows:- “ 70. Suits and appeals.— (1) Any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner— (i) under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 69 and relating to any of the matters specified in section 63, section 64 or section 67 ; or (ii) under section 63, section 64 or section 67 read with sub-section (1)(a), 2 or (4)(a) of section 22 or under section 65 may, within ninety days from the date of the receipt of such order by him, institute a suit in the Court against such order, and the Court may modify or cancel such order, but it shall have no power to stay of order of the Commissioner pending the disposal of the suit. (2) Any party aggrieved by a decree of the Court under sub-section (1), may, within ninety days from the date of the decree, appeal to the High Court.” 19.A reading of above provision would suggest that against the order passed by the Commissioner, in appeal, any party aggrieved is entitled to file a statutory suit before a regular Civil Court. Any person aggrieved by the Decree passed in such suit has got appeal remedy before this Court under Section 70(2) of HR and CE Act. Therefore, a person aggrieved by any order passed in a proceedings initiated under Section 63(e) is entitled to file an appeal before the Commissioner and any order passed by the Commissioner in such appeal can be challenged before the Regular Civil Court and decree passed by the Civil Court is liable to be appealed against before this Court. Therefore, a person aggrieved by any order passed in a proceedings initiated under Section 63(e) is entitled to file an appeal before the Commissioner and any order passed by the Commissioner in such appeal can be challenged before the Regular Civil Court and decree passed by the Civil Court is liable to be appealed against before this Court. Therefore, the aggrieved person is not only having appeal remedy before the Statutory Authority, he is also entitled to file a suit before the regular Civil Court and move before this Court by way of regular appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Court. When effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party before hierarchy of Courts including this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to by-pass the alternative remedy available under the Act and rush to this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20.One of the main contention made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has issued directions for further enquiry by the 3rd respondent and hence, the impugned order is interim in nature. ....... 23. As discussed earlier, the petitioner has got alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner and any order passed by the Commissioner is liable to be challenged by way of suit before the regular Civil Court. Further, appeal to this Court is also provided. When petitioner has got three remedies one by way of appeal before the Statutory Authority, the other by way of regular Civil Suit and regular first appeal to this Court, which is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case law referred above is squarely applicable to this Court. Even though the above said decision was rendered in the context of exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same is applicable to exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also. Hence, I hold the writ petition is not maintainable 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1088 of 2023 when petitioner has got effective remedy before the Statutory Authority and also before the regular Civil Court.” 17. Hence, I hold the writ petition is not maintainable 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1088 of 2023 when petitioner has got effective remedy before the Statutory Authority and also before the regular Civil Court.” 17. That apart, it is submitted that the Fit Person, who was appointed in the year 2011, was the member of the Petitioner Sabha, who had given a recommendation on 16.07.2012, which was accepted by the then Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer on 12.11.2012 and has not been approved so far by the 2 nd Respondent, Commissioner of the HR&CE Department. 18. It is submitted that in the proceeding initiated by the said Ayyappan in R.P.No.320 of 2017-D2, the Commissioner has now directed the 3 rd Respondent to initiate suo motu proceeding and accordingly, the proceeding has been initiated. 19. It is submitted that the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024 of the 3 rd Respondent does not suffer from any procedural infraction, inasmuch as the petitioner was heard and the evidence was recorded both on behalf of the petitioner as also the said Ayyappan, at whose behest the proceedings were initiated. In this connection, a reference is made to the preamble to the Impugned Order: 20. It is further submitted that the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024 of the 3 rd Respondent also discussed the submissions of the petitioner as well as the documents. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted below: 21. It is submitted that several proceedings have been initiated in the past for the theft of precious idol and peacock idol of the temple, which were also the subject matter of several writ petitions of this Court. In this connection, a reference is made to the following orders: “i) W.P.(MD) No.8794 of 2019 (E.Esakki Muthu Vs. The Special Officer and others) dated 23.04.2019. ii) W.A.(MD) No.1468 of 2022 (Arulmighu Sri Subramania Swami Thirukovil and another Vs. D.Kumar Iyer) dated 02.12.2022. iii) W.P.(MD) No.26672 of 2022 (D.Kumar Iyer Vs Arulmighu Sri Subramania Swami Thirukovil and another) dated 24.01.2023. iv) W.P.(MD) No.24967 of 2023 (K.Jaya Anand @ Karan Vs. The Commissioner and others) dated 09.11.2023. v) W.P.(MD) No.2009 of 2023 (The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer Vs. K Jaya Anand @ Karan and another) dated 21.11.2023. vi) W.P.No.1088 of 2023 (S.Krishnasamy Bhattar Vs. The Joint Commissioner and others) dated 12.07.2023.” 22. iv) W.P.(MD) No.24967 of 2023 (K.Jaya Anand @ Karan Vs. The Commissioner and others) dated 09.11.2023. v) W.P.(MD) No.2009 of 2023 (The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer Vs. K Jaya Anand @ Karan and another) dated 21.11.2023. vi) W.P.No.1088 of 2023 (S.Krishnasamy Bhattar Vs. The Joint Commissioner and others) dated 12.07.2023.” 22. A reference was also made to the FIR registered in Crime No.55 of 2019 before the Tiruchendur Police Station at the behest of the Idol Wing formed by this Court. 23. The learned counsel for the 4 th and 5 th Respondents would submit that the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Sabha is contrary to the pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition. 24. That apart, it is submitted that before the 3 rd Respondent Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer herein, the Petitioner has clearly admitted that the Petitioner was not espousing the interest under Section 55(2) of the HR & CE Act, 1959. It is therefore submitted that the argument before this Court today to challenge the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024 is contrary to the aforesaid undertaking/counter in O.A.No.35 of 2021. 25. A reference is made to the following paragraph from the counter filed by the Petitioner herein, which reads as under: 26. The learned counsel for the 4 th and 5 th Respondents would draw attention to the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.8794 of 2019 (M.Esakki Muthu Vs. The Special Officer and others) dated 23.04.2019 wherein the petitioner was impleaded as 8 th respondent. It is submitted that the case has been now transferred to the Principal Bench and has also been clubbed along with the Idol Wing cases. 27. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the FIR in Crime No.55 of 2019 dated 01.05.2019 has been registered by the Tiruchendur Police Station, Tuticorin. A reference is made to the allegation regarding the alleged theft of idol substituting with the fake idol and thereafter, replacing into the original idol and that the investigation is pending. 28. 27. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the FIR in Crime No.55 of 2019 dated 01.05.2019 has been registered by the Tiruchendur Police Station, Tuticorin. A reference is made to the allegation regarding the alleged theft of idol substituting with the fake idol and thereafter, replacing into the original idol and that the investigation is pending. 28. He submits that pursuant to the Recommendation dated 16.07.2012 of the Fit Person/Thakar of the 5 th Respondent Temple and Order dated 12.11.2012 of the 3 rd Respondent Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer with the approval of the Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner General has recognized the members of the Petitioner Sabha as employees of the Temple, who are entitled to receive remuneration in the form of kind and therefore, they cannot dictate the affairs of the Temple. 29. It is further submitted that the 5 th Respondent Temple is under the control of the HR & CE Department and therefore, question of Petitioner dictating the terms to the HR & CE does not arise. It is submitted that the members of the Petitioner Sabha society are the employees within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions and Service) Rules, 2020. 30. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents. I have also perused the documents that are filed along with this Writ Petition. 31. There is a long drawn battle between the members of the Petitioner’s Sabha and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department as documented in a Mediation Report dated 22.11.2011 of the learned Mediator, Hon'ble Mr Justice N.V. Balasubramaniam (Retd) (since deceased) who was appointed as a mediator by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Order dated 23.02.2011 in S.L.P.No. 5522 of 2011 filed by about 7 members of the Petitioner’s Sabha pursuant to the Resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of Sri Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil dated 28.11.2009 which was approved by the HR&CE Department. 32. It appears that the custody of all the 6 keys of the Sanctum Santorium of Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple was in the custody and possession of the members of the Petitioner Sabha, till about 1966. 32. It appears that the custody of all the 6 keys of the Sanctum Santorium of Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple was in the custody and possession of the members of the Petitioner Sabha, till about 1966. Thereafter, 4 keys were taken over by the HR & CE Department pursuant to Resolution dated 28.11.2011, remaining 2 keys were also taken away from the custody of the members of the Petitioner Sabha who are called as the ‘Sthalthars’. The aforesaid resolution passed by the Board of Trustees was also approved by the 2nd Respondent herein on 13.03.2010 and consequential order was passed by the 4th Respondent herein on 30.12.2010. 33. This was the subject matter of challenge before this High Court in W.P.(MD) No.28 of 2011. The Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 31.01.2011. The aggrieved writ petitioners thereafter filed W.A. (MD) No.157 of 2011 which also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on 08.02.2011. 34. Aggrieved by the order of Division Bench in W.A.(MD).No.157 of 2011, the writ petitioners thus filed SLP.No. 5522 of 2011 wherein an order came to be passed on 23.02.2011 whereby Hon'ble Mr Justice N.V. Balasubramaniam (Retd) (since deceased) was appointed as the Mediator to resolve the dispute between the petitioners in the above mentioned petition and the 2nd and the 4th Respondent herein who were the respondents in the aforesaid proceedings before this Court, the Division Bench of this High Court and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.5522 of 2011. 35. Pursuant to the above appointment, a mediation was held between the parties in presence of Hon'ble Mr Justice N.V.Balasubramaniam (Retd.) (since deceased) which culminated in the Compromise Memo which was recorded in the Compromise Memo dated 22.11.2011 between the petitioners in the above proceeding and the 2nd and 4th Respondent herein. A Mediation Report dated 22.11. 2011 containing the Memo of Compromise between the parties was also filed by Hon'ble Mr Justice N.V. Balasubramaniam (Retd) (since deceased) in his capacity as the Mediator before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5522 of 2011. A Mediation Report dated 22.11. 2011 containing the Memo of Compromise between the parties was also filed by Hon'ble Mr Justice N.V. Balasubramaniam (Retd) (since deceased) in his capacity as the Mediator before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5522 of 2011. The relevant portion of the Memo of Compromise is extracted hereunder: “Under the able guidance and assistance of the Hon'ble Mediator, the parties have arrived at a settlement on the following terms: (i) In the Karuvulam, for the outer door, there are three locks and for the innder foor, there are three locks, the Thiriswanthira Sthalathars – recommnded by Sthalathars sabha of Arulmighu Subramnaiyaswamy temple, tiruchendhur shall be entitled to have custody of 2 keys namely one of the outer door lock and one of the inner door lock shall be in the custody of the Fit Person/Chariman Board of Trustees. The 3 rd keys of outer door locks and of the inner door locks shall be in the custody of the Executive Officer (ii) with regard to Periyacheppu, which is kept inside the Karuvulam, has four locks in which the Thiriswanthira Sthalathars shall have the keys of two lcoks, the Fit Person/Chariman Board of Trustees shall keep the key of one lock and the Executive Officer shall keep the key of another one lock. (iii) with regard to Vahana Arai which has got four locks in which the Thiriswanthira Sthalathars shall leep the keys of two locks, the Chariman Board of Trustee/Fit Person shall leep one key of one lock and the Executive Officer shall keep one key of another lock (iv) with regard to the Pattupetti which has two locks, one key shall be with Thiruswanthira Sthalathars and the another key shall be with the Temple administration i.e, the executive of the temple. 2. The said Thiruswanthira Sthalathars of the Arulmighu Subramanya Swamy Temple Tiruchendhur shall co-operate with Fit Person / Board of Trustees and the Executive Officer in opening and closing of the Karuvulam on all occasions as and when called for by the Executive Officer” 36. The above Memo of Compromise dated 22.11.2011 was also taken on the file of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5522 of 2011 and an Order came to be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid proceedings on 09.02.2012. The above Memo of Compromise dated 22.11.2011 was also taken on the file of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5522 of 2011 and an Order came to be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid proceedings on 09.02.2012. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with the following observation:- “Mr.R.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Guru Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit on instructions that the compromise arrangement arrived at between the parties is intended to provide a lasting solution to the problem. The sought substitution of the orders passed by the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai, by the compromise arrangement arrived at between the parties. In the circumstances, therefore all that needs to be done is to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the amicable settlement arrived between the parties. The orders passed by the High Court are required to be set aside and the writ petition disposed of in terms of the settlement as set out in the compromise memo. We order accordingly. The compromise arrived at between the parties shall form part of this order. We hope and trust that the parties will make the compromise arrangement effective within two weeks from the today. IA No.2 and special leave petition are accordingly disposed of.” 37. It is in the light of the above Order dated 09.02.2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the 4th respondent Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner of the Temple passed the Order dated 12.11.2012 in his proceeding bearing reference Pro.RC.No.12001/2007 recognised the customary rights to do Thirumeni Kaval on a rotation basis at the Temple in favour of 14 different persons belonging to the Petitioner’s Sabha. The Order was to remain in force for a period of one year or further orders pending further approval of the 2nd Respondent, Commissioner. Relevant portion of the Order dated 12.11.2012 of the Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner in his proceeding bearing reference Pro.RC.No. 12001/2007 is copied hereunder: 38. Fact remains that, the 2 Respondent has not given any formal approval pursuant to the aforesaid Order dated 12.11.2012 of the then 4th Respondent Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner of the Temple pursuant to the Resolution No. 345 dated 16.07.2012 of the Fit Person/Thakkar of the 5th Respondent Temple. Fact remains that, the 2 Respondent has not given any formal approval pursuant to the aforesaid Order dated 12.11.2012 of the then 4th Respondent Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner of the Temple pursuant to the Resolution No. 345 dated 16.07.2012 of the Fit Person/Thakkar of the 5th Respondent Temple. However, the above direction for an approval from the 2nd Respondent, Commissioner was for a mere technical formality in view of the Order dated 09.02.2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In SLP.No. 5522 of 2011. 39. The Memo of Compromise dated 22.11.2011 pursuant to the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.02.2011 in SLP No.5522 of 2011 appointing Hon'ble Mr Justice N.V. Balasubramaniam (Retd) (since deceased) as the Mediator to resolve the dispute between the parties elaborates and expounds the history regarding the customary practice followed in the 5th Respondent Temple between the 7th Writ Petitioners in W.P (MD) No.528 of 2011, Appellant in W.A (MD) No.157 of 2011 which ultimately culminated in the Order dated 09.02.2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court settling the issue. Thus, the rights of members of the petitioner has been recognised. 40. It is noticed that O.S.No. 151 of 2017 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruchendur is seized of the denominational rights of the members of the Petitioner Sabha and the Judgement is expected to be pronounced by the said Court on 09.01.2025. Therefore, there is no justification in the Impugned Order rd dated 29.05.2024 of the 3 Respondent in OA.No.35 of 2021 by taking away the rights of the members of the Petitioner Sabha which appears to have been recognised in the earlier proceedings. 41. Therefore, such rights which were transferred back by the 4th Respondent, Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer vide proceedings dated 12.11.2012 by acting on the Resolution No 345 dated 16.07.2012 of the Fit Person/Thakar of the 5th Respondent Temple need not be disturbed. All further rights of the members of the Petitioner Sabha will have to be decided in the light of the rights that may be recognised by the Civil Court in the above suit pending before the Sub Court, Tiruchendur. 42. Therefore, the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside with the above observation. This Writ Petition accordingly stands allowed. There shall however be no costs to the parties.