Judgment : 1. The petitioners seek for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to appoint other than Nadar community people as an Arangavalar till the pending disposal of the O.S.No.109 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur. 2. The petitioners would state that they all belong to Hindu Nadar Community, who worship Karkuvel Ayanar as their family deity, which is said to have originated about 500 years back and the statute of the deity has previously placed under the tree of “Vakkanadhi” and thereafter shifted to the temple and the temple was renovated on 27.05.1998. It is submitted that several philanthropists belonging to the Nadar Community in the District have contributed substantial sums of money for construction of Mandapam and provision of various facilities etc., 3. The petitioners would further state that a suit is pending in O.S.No.109 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif court, Thiruchendur to declare the Karkuvel Ayanar Temple as Nadar's 'Kulakoil' and that the said suit is pending. The petitioners came to know from the daily newspapers that steps have been taken by the respondent Board to appoint the District Committees under Section 7(A) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, as amended. The petitioners therefore submitted a representation to the authorities on 26.07.2014 stating that since the suit is pending, the respondent should not appoint any other person as the members of the committee other than the persons belonging to the Nadar Community. The petitioner would refer to G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.07.2014, pertaining to Arulmighu Chidambareswarar Vagaiyara Thirukovil, Chettiyapatthu Village, Thiruchendur Taluk. With the above facts, the petitioner has approached this Court stating that the petitioner's representation has not been considered. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that already an Executive Officer has been appointed for the said temple. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners cannot place any reliance on G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.07.2014, since the said Government Order was passed in the light of a scheme framed by the Joint Commissioner in O.S.No.4 of 1999, dated 03.06.2009. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners cannot place any reliance on G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.07.2014, since the said Government Order was passed in the light of a scheme framed by the Joint Commissioner in O.S.No.4 of 1999, dated 03.06.2009. It is further submitted that in terms of sub-section 5 of Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7-A of the Act, the District Committee shall have no jurisdiction to send any panel of persons in respect of any religious institution for which a scheme has been settled or deemed to have been settled under the Act by the High Court or any Court subordinate to the High Court. 5. By referring to the above provisions, since a scheme has not been settled in respect of the temple in question, the petitioner cannot seek for any relief as that of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.07.2014. 6. In any event, a representation is pending before the authorities. Though the petitioner has approached this Court with a larger relief, this Court is not inclined to issue any positive direction at this point of time. In the light of the above, it would suffice to direct the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2014 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Prior to passing orders, the fourth respondent shall call for a report from the respondents 5 & 6 as regards the factual situation and after considering all the aspects, pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.