Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 2. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 27.02.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No.2436 of 2011. 3. The petitioner in the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD) No.2436 of 2011, is the appellant in the present Writ Appeal. The Writ Petition had been filed by the appellant herein, to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 22.02.2011, appointing a Fit Person to manage the affairs of Arulmigu Thalayari Gurunathar Thirukovil, South Masi Street, Madurai. 4. The case of the appellant is that the legal heirs of Sri.Aadimoolam Pillai, including the appellant herein, had been performing the Pooja and the administration of temple, for over 400 years. While so, an application had been filed, in O.A.No.15 of 2008, by certain third parties, for framing a Scheme, for the administration of the temple in question. When such issues had been raised, a Fit Person had been appointed, by an order of the first respondent, dated 22.02.2011, for managing the affairs of the temple. In such circumstances, the appellant had preferred the Writ Petition before this Court, challenging the said order. The learned single judge had passed an order, on 27.02.2013, allowing the said Writ Petition, by setting aside the impugned order, passed by the first respondent, dated 22.02.2011. The said order had been passed with the following directions/conditions:- “(i) The Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Madurai is directed to hear and dispose of O.A.No.15 of 2008, O.A.No.16 of 2008 and O.A.No.16 of 2011, after issuing notice to all parties and affording opportunity to all of them to file their respective affidavits and the Joint Commissioner shall dispose of the said applications as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The parties to the proceedings shall co-operate in the early disposal of the applications before the Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., Madurai. Till the disposal of the applications by the Joint Commissioner, as directed above, the petitioner shall be entitled to continue to perform the poojas and day to day activities in the temple. (ii) The parties to the proceedings shall co-operate in the early disposal of the applications before the Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., Madurai. Till the disposal of the applications by the Joint Commissioner, as directed above, the petitioner shall be entitled to continue to perform the poojas and day to day activities in the temple. (iii) The petitioner shall not be entitled to alienate any movable or immovable properties belonging to the temple or create any encumbrance or lien over such properties. (iv) The petitioner shall maintain accounts such as balance sheet, audited statement of account, which shall be submitted once in 30 days to the first respondent, who shall keep the same on record. (v) The petitioner shall not be entitled to establish any Hundial in the temple. (vi) The petitioner shall not be entitled to undertake any major Tirupani work except for day to day maintenance of the temple. (vii) The petitioner is stated to be residing in a house adjoining to the temple and he claims that the patta in respect of the said property stands in his name. In any event till the matters are decided by the Joint Commissioner as per the direction issued supra, the petitioner shall not be entitled to alienate and create encumbrance even in respect of the said house property.” 5. In the present Writ Appeal, Mr.M.S.Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar, appearing on behalf of theappellant had submitted that the appellant had challenged the order, dated 27.02.2013, made in W.P.(MD).No.2436 of 2011, imposing certain directions/conditions, particularly, conditions Nos.3 to 7. 6. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that, even though some of the directions/conditions, found in the order of the learned single Judge, dated 27.02.2013, are unnecessary, it would suffice if direction/condition No:(iv) is deleted, wherein, the learned Single Judgehad pointed out that the appellant should maintain accounts, such as balance sheets and audited statements of account, and the same shall be submitted to the first respondent, once in 30 days. 7. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said observation would prejudice the mind of the authority concerned, who would have to decide the issue as to whether the temple, in question is a private temple or a public temple, coming under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board of the Government of Tamil Nadu. 8. 7. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said observation would prejudice the mind of the authority concerned, who would have to decide the issue as to whether the temple, in question is a private temple or a public temple, coming under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board of the Government of Tamil Nadu. 8. The learned Senior counsel had further submitted that the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madurai, may be directed to hear and dispose of O.A.Nos.15 and 16 of 2008 and 16 of 2011, as expeditiously as possible, as directed by the learned single Judge, by his order, dated 27.02.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No.2436 of 2011. 9. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 had submitted that the directions/conditions incorporated in the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 27.02.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No.2436 of 2011, is in no way prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. Therefore, the present Writ Appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed, in limine. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the appellant cannot be said to be prejudiced by the directions/conditions incorporated in the order, dated 27.02.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No.2436 of 2011. The directions issued by the learned single Judge by the order, dated 27.02.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No. 2436 of 2011, is only an interim arrangement, which would be subject to the final orders to be passed by the authorities of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board. It is for the appellant to raise all the grounds available to him before the Joint Commissioner, Madurai, in O.A.Nos.15, 16 of 2008 and 16 of 2011, with regard to the nature and character of the temple in question. The claim made on behalf of the appellant that condition No.(iv) which states that the appellant should maintain accounts, such as balance sheets and audited statements of account and that the same should be submitted to the first respondent, once in 30 days, cannot in any way, prejudice the minds of the first respondent, while deciding the issues arising in the said applications. It is made clear that the said authority ought to decide the issues, without being prejudiced by the directions/conditions incorporated in the order, dated 27.02.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No. 2436 of 2011. The first respondent is also directed to dispose of the said applications, before the end of November, 2013. However, the appellant shall follow the directions/conditions incorporated in the order, dated 27.02.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No. 2436 of 2011, scrupulously, without any default, till the disposal of the applications, in O.A.Nos.15 and 16 of 2008 and O.A.No16 of 2011, by the first respondent herein. This Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above observations. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.