ORDER: The Sabha is before this Court seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, especially the first respondent to pass orders in the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner in R.P.No.191 of 2017 against the order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner appointing a fit person. 2. According to the petitioner, the Sabha is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Sabha only constructed the temple. When the Sabha is in administration of the temple, the third respondent/Assistant Commissioner passed an order appointing the fit person to manage the affairs of the temple. Against the said order, an Appeal/Revision has been filed before the first respondent/Commissioner in R.P.No.191 of 2017 and the same is pending. Only to dispose the said Revision Petition, the petitioner has come before this Court. 3. Mr.Magesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner Sabha was illegally dispossessed by using police force, from the administration of the temple. Therefore, the administration has to be restored to the petitioner Sabha, while directing the first respondent to dispose of the Revision. 4. On the other hand Mr.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader [HR&CE] would submit that since there was mis-management of the temple property, which is worth about crores of rupees in Porur, the fit person was appointed by the third respondent/Assistant Commissioner as early as on 13.06.2005 and the fit person is in the administration. Suppressing those facts, the petitioner has come before this Court, as if the Sabha is in the administration. 5. This Court has given anxious consideration to both the claim submissions made by both the parties. Admittedly, the administration, as on date, is with the fit person, though the petitioner claims that police force has been used to take the administration of the temple. 6. The very purpose of filing of the appeal is only to challenge the order of appointment of the fit person. If, in the Appeal/Revision, the said order is set aside or an order has been passed positively in favour of the petitioner, even if the administration has been taken over illegally, the respondents are bound to hand over the administration as long as the issue is at large before the first respondent/Commissioner. 7. If, in the Appeal/Revision, the said order is set aside or an order has been passed positively in favour of the petitioner, even if the administration has been taken over illegally, the respondents are bound to hand over the administration as long as the issue is at large before the first respondent/Commissioner. 7. This Court is not inclined to pass any order with regard to the administration of the temple, as the prayer sought for by the petitioner is with regard to the disposal of the Revision. 8. In view of the above, this Court directs the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, after hearing both the parties in the Appeal/Revision filed by the petitioner, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.