platform of Pallavan Salai, Chennai facing east, which is one of the established Charities of the Madras Ordnance Pensioned Lascars registered under the Act 21 of 1860. This temple is administered by the scheme decree dated 01.08.1941 passed in C.S.No.177 of 1939 and it is now under the control of the Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, High Court, Madras, the respondent herein. When the temple is having an extent of 64 feet of land in the platform with the hundi box maintained in the premises, after the appellant's grandfather and father were managing the temple, her mother obtained licence from the respondent following the direction of this Court and this is how the appellant has been managing the temple from the year 2012 on the basis of the licence obtained from the respondent. When the licence was earlier granted for a period of three years making provisions for payment of amount by instalments, considering the pathetic condition of the appellant's ancestors, this Court, by order dated 02.07.1998 in Application No.1187 of 1998, permitted the appellant's late father Loganathan to obtain licence for a period of three years from 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2000. However, for the period from 01.05.2019 to 30.04.2020, when the appellant became the highest bidder for Rs.76.20 lakhs, adding Rs.4,000/over and above Rs.76.20 lakhs, she was permitted to pay the amount of Rs.76.24 lakhs by way of instalments on 10.05.2019, 10.08.2019, 10.11.2019 and 10.02.2020. The aforesaid amount of Rs.76.24 lakhs was also paid by the appellant upto 20.02.2020, in addition to Rs.13.73 lakhs paid towards GST. It is also stated that due to Covid-19 lockdown period, the said temple was closed down. Besides, the appellant also employed 32 individuals, namely, 4 poojaris, 3 security men, 10 persons for cleaning and regulating the parking of vehicles and 15 persons to conduct poojas in respect of the vehicles coming to the temple. Although the temple was kept locked, the poojaris were paid in full and for others, half pay was made, because 30 families are depending upon the income of the temple. However, from 22.03.2020, there was no pooja activities, as a result, the hundi collections were also kept locked. But the licence fee had been paid upto 30.04.2020. Finally this Court, by order dated 18.12.2020 in Application No.2084 of 2020, extending the licence to the appellant for a period of one year from 01.05.2020 to 30.04.2021 on payment of Rs.85 lakhs being the annual licence fee with 18% GST for performing poojas and maintaining the hundial collections of the Bodyguard Muneeswarar Temple, also further directed the appellant to pay the aforesaid amount in four equal instalments. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant took out Application No.597 of 2020 seeking modification of the order dated 18.12.2020 and this Court, after hearing the parties, by order dated 12.03.2021, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.56,66,667/- as licence fee for the period from 01.09.2020 to 30.04.2021, for the reason that the Administrator General and Official Trustee objected to modify
