(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned rejection order dated 11.07.2026 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal and further directing the respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate Police Protection to conduct the Aadi Festivan in peaceful manner from 10.08.2026 to 14.08.2026 at Sri Irangi Muthamman Temple situated at Thoppulakkarai, Virudhunagar District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2026.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiori, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order Pa.Ve.A2/40/2025 dated 10.07.2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal.)

Common Order:

Prologue:

1. Temples in the villages of this State are not merely edifices of worship. They are also repositories of collective memory, customary observances and inherited practices. A temple festival, when conducted in harmony, unites a village beyond distinctions of caste and community. When competing claims of ownership, management and ritual precedence are introduced into worship, however, the sanctity of the institution is eclipsed by discord.

2. The present proceedings are yet another chapter in a longstanding dispute among the residents of Thoppulakkarai Village, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, concerning Arulmigu Sri Renganachiamman Temple, also known as Sri Irangi Muthamman Temple. The immediate controversy relates to the proposed Aadi festival from 10.08.2026 to 14.08.2026. Beneath that immediate controversy lies a deeper dispute as to ownership of the temple, its administration, the communities entitled to conduct its festivals, and the extent of the participatory rights of the Rajakambala Nayakkar community and the other residents of the village.

3. W.P.(Crl.)(MD) No.3980 of 2026 challenges the proceedings dated 11.07.2026 of the Inspector of Police, Tiruchuli Circle, refusing permission and police protection for the proposed festival. W.P.(Crl.) (MD) No.4150 of 2026 challenges the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, in Pa.Ve.A2/40/2025, dated 10.07.2026, which, inter alia, directed that no community should claim exclusive ownership over the temple and that no separate festival should be conducted by any one community.

4. Since the two writ petitions concern the same temple, the same festival, the same contesting groups and substantially overlapping questions, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

Reliefs sought:

5. In W.P.(Crl.)(MD) No.3980 of 2026, the petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings dated 11.07.2026 of the Inspector of Police, Tiruchuli Circle, refusing permission to conduct the Aadi festival and consequently to direct the official respondents to provide adequate police protection for conducting the festival from 10.08.2026 to 14.08.2026.

6. In W.P.(Crl.)(MD) No.4150 of 2026, the petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, dated 10.07.2026, principally on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to adjudicate or alter the customary, civil and religious rights claimed by the six communities in relation to the temple and its festivals.

Factual matrix:

7. The petitioners claim to represent the Festival Committee of Sri Irangi Muthamman Temple. According to them, the temple has, from time immemorial, been managed and its festivals conducted by six communities, namely, Maravar, Agamudaiyar, Vellalar, Asari, Iyengar and Pandaram communities.

8. The petitioners contend that members of the Rajakambala Nayakkar community have no customary or managerial right over the subject temple. At the same time, they assert that they have never prevented members of any community, including the Rajakambala Nayakkar community, from worshipping the deity or participating in the festival.

9. The petitioners state that disputes arose when members of the Rajakambala Nayakkar community sought either to conduct a separate festival at the subject temple or to claim an equal share in its administration and festival arrangements.

10. Reference has been made to W.P.(MD) No.19454 of 2023, in which this Court is stated to have directed the rival groups to participate in the festival without obstruction and to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication of their respective rights.

11. The petitioners also rely upon the order dated 27.09.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.22654 of 2024. According to them, this Court took note of the absence of material establishing a customary practice on the part of the Rajakambala Nayakkar community to perform the rituals claimed by it at Sri Irangi Muthamman Temple.

12. The petitioners further rely upon the order dated 07.08.2025 in W.P.(Crl.)(MD) No.536 of 2025, under which permission is stated to have been granted for conducting the Aadi festival. They also refer to W.P.(MD) No.799 of 2025 and contend that the claim of the rival faction to conduct a separate festival was not accepted, though their right to worship and participate was protected.

13. For the year 2026, a representation dated 18.06.2026 was submitted seeking permission and police protection to conduct the Aadi festival from 10.08.2026 to 14.08.2026. Since no immediate decision was communicated, W.P.(Crl.)(MD)No.3826 of 2026 was instituted seeking consideration of the representation.

14. In the meanwhile, the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the basis of a petition submitted by the All India Democratic Women’s Association, conducted an enquiry on 06.07.2026. Officials of the Revenue, Police and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Departments, representatives of the Rajakambala Nayakkar community and representatives of the six communities participated in the enquiry.

15. The All India Democratic Women’s Association sought removal of the inscription and the public announcement allegedly proclaiming that the temple belonged exclusively to the six communities. It further sought removal of an obstruction allegedly placed across the customary pathway and participation of members of all communities in the temple festival.

16. The representatives of the Rajakambala Nayakkar community contended before the Revenue Divisional Officer that the temple stood on Government poramboke land and that the members of all communities should be permitted to participate in its administration and festivals. They also sought permission to offer Mulaipari, carry Agni Chatti and tie the Kaappu.

17. On behalf of the six communities, it was contended that the temple stood amidst lands belonging to them and had traditionally been administered by them. While they expressed no objection to members of the Rajakambala Nayakkar community worshipping at the temple, they opposed the conferment of an equal share in administration or permission to conduct a separate festival.

18. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by the impugned proceedings dated 10.07.2026, recorded that the temple is situated in Survey No.100/20, classified in the village accounts as Government poramboke land. On that basis, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed, among other things, that:

                   (i) no community shall prevent members of any other community from worshipping at the temple;

                   (ii) any person or community claiming ownership over the temple shall approach the competent Civil Court;

                   (iii) until a decree is obtained from the Civil Court, no group shall represent that the temple belongs exclusively to it;

                   (iv) no separate festival shall be conducted by any single community, and members of all communities shall worship jointly; and

                   (v) the police shall take action against any person causing a law-and-order problem or disseminating provocative material through social media.

19. Thereafter, by the impugned proceedings dated 11.07.2026, the Inspector of Police refused permission for the proposed Aadi festival. The refusal was principally founded upon the history of disputes between the two groups, the criminal cases registered in 2018 and 2023, the continued disagreement over the temple and the apprehension of a serious law-and-order problem.

History of criminal and preventive proceedings:

20. The proceedings of the Inspector of Police refer to the disputes that arose in the year 2018 and to the registration of cases in Crime Nos.91 and 92 of 2018 for offences involving unlawful assembly, rioting, hurt, attempt to murder, mischief by fire and damage to property. Preventive proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are also stated to have been initiated.

21. Reference is also made to the occurrence dated 02.07.2023, when an attempt was allegedly made to erect a thorn fence around the temple premises. Crime No.65 of 2023 was consequently registered for offences including obstruction of public servants and acts endangering public safety.

22. Crime No.68 of 2023 was thereafter registered on the complaint of the Village Administrative Officer against certain persons alleged to have assembled unlawfully, obstructed movement and interfered with public servants in the discharge of their duties.

23. These proceedings cannot, in the circumstances, be dismissed as ancient or wholly irrelevant. They form part of the continuing history of the dispute. At the same time, the existence of previous criminal cases cannot, by itself and in perpetuity, extinguish the right of the devotees to worship. The relevant question is whether, in the prevailing circumstances, the proposed festival can be regulated without the Court indirectly adjudicating the rival civil and customary rights.

Grounds of challenge:

24. The petitioners contend that the police mechanically refused permission merely because disputes had occurred in previous years. According to them, a perceived possibility of disturbance ought ordinarily to be addressed by imposing reasonable conditions and providing adequate police protection, instead of prohibiting the festival altogether.

25. It is further contended that the authorities failed to take note of the fact that festivals were conducted peacefully in the intervening years under orders of this Court. The petitioners therefore submit that the apprehension expressed in the impugned police proceedings is speculative and disproportionate.

26. As regards the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the principal contention is one of jurisdiction. According to the petitioners, a Revenue Divisional Officer entrusted with maintaining public order may convene peace meetings and make temporary regulatory arrangements, but cannot decide questions of ownership, hereditary management, customary administration or entitlement to conduct religious rituals.

27. The petitioners also contend that classification of the land as Government poramboke does not, by itself, resolve the question as to who founded the temple, who has been administering it, or which communities possess customary rights relating to its festivals.

28. According to the petitioners, the proceedings dated 10.07.2026 traverse far beyond a temporary law-and-order arrangement and effectively displace the customary system under which the six communities have jointly administered the temple.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:

29. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the six communities have been conducting the temple festivals in accordance with settled custom and that their right has been repeatedly protected by this Court.

30. It was submitted that the petitioners do not seek to exclude any devotee from worship. The dispute, according to them, is confined to the right to administer the temple and to organise the festival. Participation in worship cannot be equated with a right of administration or an equal share in conducting rituals.

31. The learned counsel further submitted that the order in W.P.(MD) No.22654 of 2024 had taken note of the absence of proof regarding the performance of the disputed rituals by the Rajakambala Nayakkar community. The Revenue Divisional Officer and the police could not disregard the observations contained in the earlier orders of this Court.

32. It was argued that the police are under a statutory obligation to maintain public order and cannot reward the threat of disturbance by refusing permission to those claiming an established right. Adequate police personnel could be deployed and suitable conditions imposed to ensure peaceful conduct of the festival.

33. As regards the Revenue Divisional Officer’s proceedings, it was submitted that the authority acted as though it were a Civil Court. The declaration that the temple does not belong to any particular community and the direction that the festival must be conducted jointly by all communities were contended to be beyond the scope of a peace-meeting proceeding.

Submissions on behalf of the official respondents:

34. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the dispute has persisted from the year 2018 and has resulted in serious criminal cases involving allegations of rioting, attempt to murder, damage to property, obstruction of public servants and road blockades.

35. The authorities are stated to have conducted repeated surveys, enquiries and peace meetings. Despite the directions issued in the earlier proceedings, the parties have not obtained an adjudication from the competent Civil Court.

36. It was submitted that grant of permission to either faction to conduct the festival would be understood as official recognition of its disputed claim. In the existing atmosphere, the authorities reasonably apprehended that permission might provoke a confrontation and disturb public tranquillity.

37. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not intend to adjudicate title but only sought to maintain an inclusive and neutral arrangement until the parties establish their rights before a competent forum.

Submissions of the contesting private respondent:

38. The fifth respondent, representing the Rajakambala Nayakkar community, denied the exclusive claim of the petitioners. It was contended that, until the year 2017, members of all communities, including the Rajakambala Nayakkar community, participated in the administration and celebration of the Aadi festival.

39. According to the private respondent, the dispute arose only after the formation of a Trust in the year 2018, when certain persons began asserting exclusive control over the temple.

40. The private respondent has placed reliance upon O.S.No. 113 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai. It is stated that an application for interim injunction in I.A.No.1010 of 2018 was dismissed on 20.07.2018 and that the plaint itself was subsequently rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 11.04.2022.

41. It was further contended that certain older accounts relating to the collection of Thalaikattu Vari contained references to the Nayakkar community and that the petitioners’ present claim of administration by six communities alone is inconsistent with those records.

42. The private respondent submitted that none of the earlier writ orders finally adjudicated title, administration or customary rights. The earlier orders were confined to temporary arrangements for particular festivals. Consequently, they cannot operate as declarations of civil status for all future years.

43. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

Points for consideration:

44. The following points arise for consideration:

                    (i) Whether the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 10.07.2026 amount to an impermissible adjudication of disputed civil, customary and religious rights;

                   (ii) Whether the refusal of permission and police protection by the Inspector of Police dated 11.07.2026 warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

                   (iii) Whether the earlier orders passed by this Court conclusively determine the competing claims of the parties over the temple and its festivals; and

                   (iv) What arrangement is required to preserve the right of worship and public tranquillity until the competent Civil Court adjudicates the dispute?

Analysis:

Nature and limits of writ jurisdiction:

45. Article 226 of the Constitution confers wide powers upon this Court. The amplitude of the jurisdiction, however, does not dispense with the settled limitations governing its exercise. Where adjudication requires determination of title, proof of custom, examination of historical records, assessment of oral evidence and adjudication of disputed possession or management, the writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not the appropriate forum.

46. The rival claims in the present proceedings cannot be decided merely by reading the affidavits. The petitioners assert longstanding administration by six communities. The contesting respondent asserts joint participation of the Nayakkar community until 2017. Rival reliance is placed upon festival accounts, tax collections, pamphlets, revenue records, the location of adjoining patta lands and previous civil proceedings.

47. A custom having the force of law must be ancient or of sufficiently long duration, certain, continuous, reasonable and proved by clear and unambiguous evidence. A disputed custom cannot ordinarily be declared on the basis of unilateral pamphlets or assertions made in writ affidavits.

48. The question whether the temple belongs to six communities, whether it is a village temple common to all communities, whether the six communities possess an exclusive customary right of management, and whether the Rajakambala Nayakkar community historically participated in its administration are all questions requiring evidence.

49. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, confers jurisdiction upon Civil Courts to try all suits of a civil nature unless their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. Disputes concerning the right to management, honour, office, participation in religious ceremonies and other incidents of a religious institution may constitute disputes of a civil nature when they involve civil consequences.

50. The competent Civil Court can frame appropriate issues, receive documentary and oral evidence, examine the plea of custom, determine the evidentiary value of the old accounts and consider the effect of O.S.No.113 of 2018 and the rejection of its plaint. Such an adjudicatory exercise cannot be undertaken in these writ proceedings.

Effect of the previous writ orders:

51. The earlier orders of this Court must be understood in the context in which they were passed. Orders granting permission or prescribing arrangements for a festival in a particular year are ordinarily intended to meet an immediate exigency. Unless a question of title or customary right was directly placed in issue and finally adjudicated after an opportunity to lead evidence, such an order cannot be treated as a perpetual declaration of civil rights.

52. The observations in W.P.(MD) No.22654 of 2024 regarding the absence of material to establish the performance of a particular ritual cannot automatically be enlarged into a declaration that the Rajakambala Nayakkar community has no right whatsoever in the temple.

53. Equally, the protection afforded to participation in earlier festivals cannot be enlarged into a judicial declaration conferring an equal share in administration.

54. The order in W.P.(MD) No.19454 of 2023 assumes significance because the parties were directed to approach the competent Civil Court. Despite the recurrence of the dispute year after year, a comprehensive adjudication has not been obtained.

55. Annual recourse to writ jurisdiction for festival-specific arrangements cannot become a substitute for a civil suit. If the Court were to prescribe, year after year, who should tie the Kaappu, collect Thalaikattu Vari, organise processions, possess the keys or conduct rituals, it would effectively assume the jurisdiction of a Civil Court without pleadings, issues or evidence.

Jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer:

56. A Revenue Divisional Officer is unquestionably empowered to take preventive and regulatory measures for the maintenance of public peace. The authority may convene peace meetings, obtain undertakings, coordinate with the police and devise temporary arrangements to prevent a breach of peace.

57. Such authority does not extend to a final adjudication of ownership, hereditary trusteeship, customary administration or religious honours. A peace-meeting proceeding is preventive and provisional; it is neither a decree nor a declaration of title.

58. The classification of Survey No.100/20 as Government poramboke may be a relevant entry in the revenue records. But an entry relating to the land does not, by itself, conclusively decide the origin, character or management of the religious institution situated upon it.

59. Revenue records are principally maintained for fiscal and administrative purposes. They may constitute relevant evidence, but they are not conclusive documents of title. More importantly, even ownership of the site and customary management of the temple are not necessarily identical questions.

60. Therefore, insofar as the proceedings dated 10.07.2026 declare or may be understood as finally declaring that the temple does not belong to any particular community, that no community possesses a customary right of administration, or that all communities possess equal managerial rights, such observations cannot bind the parties in civil proceedings.

61. Nevertheless, the direction that no person should be prevented from offering worship and that provocative acts should be avoided falls within the legitimate sphere of maintaining public peace, subject always to lawful regulatory requirements and the rights ultimately determined by the competent Court.

62. Thus, the proceedings dated 10.07.2026 must be treated only as a temporary law-and-order arrangement. They cannot constitute evidence of title, confer managerial rights, extinguish customary rights or operate as res judicata in any civil proceeding.

Validity of the police refusal:

63. The petitioners are justified in contending that a general apprehension of disturbance cannot invariably justify prohibition of religious observance. Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution protect freedom of conscience, religious practice and management of religious affairs, subject to public order, morality, health and the other provisions of Part III.

64. The State is not entitled to extinguish a lawful religious practice merely because hostile elements threaten disturbance. Ordinarily, the duty of the police is to assess the situation, impose reasonable conditions and protect peaceful observance.

65. The present case, however, does not involve a simple request by an undisputed festival committee. The identity of the persons entitled to constitute the committee and conduct the festival is itself contested. A direction to provide protection to the petitioners to conduct the festival in the manner claimed by them would carry the appearance of judicial recognition of their exclusive right.

66. The police proceedings disclose not merely stale or isolated incidents but a continuing chain of disputes: serious cross-cases in 2018, disputes over surveys and boundary stones in 2023, criminal cases arising from an attempted fencing of the premises, protest activities, competing demands before the Revenue Divisional Officer and a failed peace meeting in July 2026.

67. The six-community representatives themselves stated before the Revenue Divisional Officer that they would approach the Civil Court and establish their rights. Yet no comprehensive adjudication has been obtained. In such circumstances, the police cannot be compelled to choose one faction and provide protection for the exercise of a disputed civil right.

68. Police protection is intended to protect an existing and demonstrable right. It cannot be employed as a means of creating a right or placing one contesting faction in possession of a disputed religious office or privilege.

69. The refusal dated 11.07.2026 cannot therefore be characterised as wholly arbitrary. It is based upon relevant materials and a proximate assessment of the prevailing dispute. This Court finds no ground to issue a positive mandamus directing the police to permit the petitioners alone to conduct the festival as claimed.

Right of worship and constitutional equality:

70. No temple can become an arena for the perpetuation of caste hostility. The petitioners themselves state that they have no objection to members of any community worshipping the deity. The contesting respondent has also stated that its immediate claim is to worship and participate in religious observances.

71. The right of worship, subject to lawful denominational rights, established religious usage and reasonable regulation, cannot be denied solely on the ground of caste or community. Articles 14, 15, 17 and 25 of the Constitution embody the constitutional opposition to exclusionary practices founded merely upon caste status.

72. At the same time, a right to enter and worship cannot automatically be equated with a right to administer the temple, control its properties, possess its keys, collect contributions, organise its festivals or claim particular ritual honours. Those incidents must be established before the appropriate forum.

73. Until the civil dispute is adjudicated, neither faction shall proclaim that an interim order of a Revenue or Police authority, or any festival-specific order of this Court, constitutes a final declaration of its title or exclusive customary rights.

Necessity of civil adjudication:

74. The dispute has persisted for approximately eight years. Criminal cases, peace meetings, revenue enquiries and successive writ petitions have not brought quietus. This is because preventive and festival-specific proceedings treat only the symptoms; the underlying civil dispute remains unresolved.

75. A comprehensive suit, properly framed, can resolve the controversy by examining:

                   (i) the origin, character and legal status of the temple;

                   (ii) the ownership and classification of the temple site;

                   (iii) the nature and composition of the body that historically administered the temple;

                   (iv) the existence and incidents of the customs pleaded by the respective parties;

                   (v) the right, if any, to collect Thalaikattu Vari or other contributions;

                   (vi) the right to possess the keys and maintain the temple;

                   (vii) the right to organise festivals and perform particular rituals;

                   (viii) the right of the various communities to participate in worship and festival observances; and

                   (ix) the legal effect of the earlier suit and the orders passed therein.

76. The persons claiming such rights must therefore approach the competent Civil Court by impleading all necessary parties, including representatives of the communities whose rights are likely to be affected and the competent Government or statutory authorities, wherever necessary.

77. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion upon the merits of the rival claims. Every observation in this order concerning the factual allegations is confined to disposal of these writ petitions.

78. In the light of the foregoing discussion, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

                   (i) The petitioners and the contesting private respondents are directed to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration and adjudication of their respective claims concerning ownership, administration, customary rights, conduct of festivals, ritual honours and other incidental rights relating to Arulmigu Sri Renganachiamman Temple, also known as Sri Irangi Muthamman Temple.

                   (ii) It is open to the parties to seek appropriate declaratory, injunctive or other consequential reliefs before the competent Civil Court. It is also open to them to seek an interim arrangement in accordance with law.

                   (iii) If such a suit and an interlocutory application are instituted, the competent Civil Court shall consider the application independently, on its own merits, after affording an opportunity to all necessary parties. The Civil Court shall not be influenced by the observations or temporary arrangements contained in the impugned administrative proceedings or in any festival-specific order passed in earlier writ petitions.

                   (iv) The findings and directions contained in the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, in Pa.Ve.A2/40/2025, dated 10.07.2026, shall be construed only as a temporary measure intended to preserve public peace. They shall not be treated as an adjudication of ownership, title, customary administration, hereditary right, managerial entitlement or ritual honour.

                   (v) In particular, the observation in the proceedings dated 10.07.2026 that the temple does not belong to any particular community shall not bind the Civil Court. The classification of the land in the revenue records and its legal effect shall be independently examined on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties.

                   (vi) The prayer in W.P.(Crl.)(MD) No.3980 of 2026 for a positive direction permitting the petitioners to conduct the festival from 10.08.2026 to 14.08.2026 with police protection is declined, since such a direction would, in the present circumstances, amount to recognising a disputed civil and customary right.

                   (vii) The proceedings of the Inspector of Police dated 11.07.2026 are sustained as a law-and-order decision confined to the proposed festival for the year 2026. They shall not be relied upon as an adjudication against the civil or customary claims of the petitioners.

                   (viii) Until appropriate orders are obtained from the competent Civil Court, no faction shall conduct a separate festival at the subject temple by claiming an exclusive right or represent that any interim administrative arrangement constitutes a final declaration in its favour.

                   (ix) No person shall be prevented solely on the ground of caste or community from offering ordinary worship at the temple during the customary opening hours, subject to reasonable regulation by the competent authorities and subject to any order passed by a competent Court.

                   (x) The permission to offer ordinary worship shall not be understood as conferring any right of administration, possession of keys, collection of tax or contribution, organisation of festivals, performance of any disputed ritual or claim to any religious honour.

                   (xi) Neither faction shall display any fresh inscription, banner, placard or public announcement asserting exclusive ownership or administration of the temple until its rights are adjudicated by the competent Civil Court.

                   (xii) The parties and their supporters shall not publish or disseminate provocative material through social media or otherwise, nor engage in any conduct likely to promote enmity or cause a breach of peace.

                   (xiii) The police authorities shall maintain public order and shall take preventive or penal action, strictly in accordance with law, against any person who attempts to cause violence, obstruct lawful worship, damage property, intimidate devotees or disturb public tranquillity.

                   (xiv) The observations contained in this order shall not prejudice any pending criminal case, which shall proceed independently on the basis of the evidence available therein.

                   (xv) W.P.(Crl.)(MD) No.3826 of 2026, if still pending, may be placed before the appropriate Bench along with a copy of this common order so that inconsistent directions are avoided.

79. Subject to the above directions, W.P.(Crl.)(MD) Nos.3980 and 4150 of 2026 stand disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.