The 2nd respondent had granted permission to the petitioner to renovate the temple of Sree Hanumantha Devaru, situated at Jaraganahalli Village, J.P.Nagar Post, Bangalore, by its order dated 25.9.2013 at Annexure-D. This order was cancelled by the 2nd respondent by his communication at Annexure ‘S’ dated 22.11.2014. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said communication in this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid temple is a muzarai temple, which is governed under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder. Elaborate procedure has been made in the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules) for renovation/repairs/reconstruction of the muzarai temples. 4. It is clear from the order at Annexure-D that the said Rules have not been followed while permitting the petitioner to renovate the aforesaid temple. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has rightly withdrawn the order at Annexure-D vide his communication at Annexure-S dated 22.11.2014. 5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no objection for constitution of a Development Committee for renovation/ repair/ reconstruction of the aforesaid temple under Rule 40(b) of the Rules. It is further submitted that the donors, who are office bearers of the petitioner Sangha may be included in the Development Committee. 6. It is not in dispute that the temple in question is in a dilapidated condition. Pursuant to the order at Annexure-D, petitioner has already started renovation of the temple. Since the order at Annexure-D is not in conformity with Rule 40(b), the 2nd respondent is justified in withdrawing the said order vide his communication at Annexure-S. It is also not in dispute that the temple requires renovation. In the circumstances, I direct the competent authority to constitute a Development Committee for renovation/ repair/ reconstruction of the temple. The donors, who are said to be office bearers of the petitioner Sangha are permitted to make a representation to the competent authority for inclusion of their name/names in the Development Committee. If such a representation is filed, the prescribed authority is directed to consider the same. The donors, who are said to be office bearers of the petitioner Sangha are permitted to make a representation to the competent authority for inclusion of their name/names in the Development Committee. If such a representation is filed, the prescribed authority is directed to consider the same. The prescribed authority is directed to constitute the Development Committee within a period of eight weeks from today for repair/renovation/ reconstruction of the temple in question. I am sure the Development Committee will take up the repair/renovation/reconstruction of the temple in accordance with the order, which may be passed by the competent authority. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.