ORDER : (D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.) This writ petition is filed with a prayer challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 in Na.Ka.No. 887202/2024/Q3 passed by the first respondent and the subsequent approval of the drawings that deviate significantly from the original temple structure and to quash the same. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the present committee of trustees, namely the sixth respondent herein, is now starting the renovation work of Arulmigu Mariyamman Temple, Devendra Street, Singanallur, Coimbatore. The said temple is more than 100 years old. Originally, when the sixth respondent approached the State Level Expert Committee, they denied most of the works proposed by the trustees. However, they later submitted another report and obtained permission only for the conservation of the structure. After obtaining such permission, the very plan of the temple itself has now been changed. The deities have been moved to the periphery, which is against the State Level Expert Committee’s report and will also severely affect the heritage structures of the temple. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Balalayam ceremony is going to be conducted on Monday (i.e.08.04.2025), and therefore this Court should intervene. 4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader taking notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, would submit that the work that is going to be done does not involve shifting the heritage structure. The heritage structure will be maintained in situ. Wherever repairs are necessary, whether for the basement, walls or ceiling, those alone will be carried out in accordance with the recommendations made by the heritage committee and the State Level Expert Committee, with due consultation and direction from the Divisional Stapathi. Therefore, there is no violation of the committee’s report that the petitioner can complain about. 5. Ms.V.S.Usha Rani, the learned counsel taking notice on behalf of the sixth respondent, would submit that the writ petition is filed only due to group rivalry and the work is not being carried out in deviation from the reports. The work is being done in accordance with the permissions granted by the appropriate authorities. 6. 5. Ms.V.S.Usha Rani, the learned counsel taking notice on behalf of the sixth respondent, would submit that the writ petition is filed only due to group rivalry and the work is not being carried out in deviation from the reports. The work is being done in accordance with the permissions granted by the appropriate authorities. 6. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointing out the rough sketch/plan annexed at Pages 129 to 131 of the paperbook in the writ petition, would submit that the plan discloses that several deities, such as Vinayagar Sannidhi, have been moved to the periphery and the structure itself has now come to the center. This makes it appear as if the entire heritage structure is going to be demolished and reconstructed in a new place. Moreover, the deities cannot be moved by the trustees as per their choice. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material records of the case. 8. Detailed directions regarding the undertaking of the Thirupani have already been given by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, which necessitate that both the heritage committee and the state level expert committee have to give their prior permission before carrying out the work. The work has to be conducted by the duly approved Stapathi in the manner prescribed by the said judgment. It is now stated by respondents 1 to 5 as well as the sixth respondent, that the necessary permissions have been granted by both the heritage committee and the State Level Expert Committee. They contend that the original Arthamandapam and the heritage structure are not being totally demolished or moved from their current positions and the same is duly recorded. Even the permission granted by the expert committee is for conservation in situ, not for demolishing and constructing elsewhere. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the original heritage structure, namely the Arthamandapam, will not be moved from its present position and will only be conserved/renovated in its existing place is recorded. This alleviates the major concern of the petitioner. 9. Apart from the above, it is the contention of the petitioner that the deities also cannot be moved from their existing places. However, I am afraid this Court cannot accept the said contention. 10. This alleviates the major concern of the petitioner. 9. Apart from the above, it is the contention of the petitioner that the deities also cannot be moved from their existing places. However, I am afraid this Court cannot accept the said contention. 10. When the temple is renovated and rebuilt, moving some of the deities, such as Urtchavars, Vinayagar, etc., to the new structures placed in the periphery will be within the realm of the authorities. Therefore, it is for the concerned Stapathi and authorities to ensure that the procedure is followed and that both the convenience and any customary rights are not affected. If the same are not affected, moving some of the deities to the new structures by itself will not violate the heritage structure or the original intention behind conserving the age old heritage temples. 11. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 5 shall also direct their subordinates/officials to inspect and periodically monitor that the renovation work is conducted strictly in accordance with the permission granted by the State Level Expert Committee. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also raise concerns about the work being carried out entirely on funds provided by the Ubayadharar. The work being carried out with the payment by the Ubayadharar cannot be faulted. However, at the same time, any Thirupani cannot be just 100% on the donation of a particular Ubayadharar alone. Even a single rupee, if donated by the public, should be accepted by the trustees. Ultimately, the Thirupani should not be seen as a one-man show, it involves the general public. The particular Thirupani may involve crores of rupees, with 99.9% of the money donated by the Ubayadharar, but the remaining 0.01% can be collected from other devotees. A donation book should always be printed and even small contributions, such as Rs.10/-, from poor persons shall be accepted. 13. Therefore, the board of trustees have to print a donation book and invite donations from everyone who wants to contribute to the Thirupani and all persons, including the petitioners may contribute. 14. However, the learned Special Government pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that, as per the rules, a Thirupani committee must be formed, and the committee will certainly publish a donation book. The same is also recorded and accounts must be maintained. 14. However, the learned Special Government pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that, as per the rules, a Thirupani committee must be formed, and the committee will certainly publish a donation book. The same is also recorded and accounts must be maintained. It is made clear that there will be no interference with the proposed Balalayam ceremony, which can proceed as planned. 15. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.