ORDER : (N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.) This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful administration of the petitioner temple in the guise of implementing the proceedings of the first respondent dated 16.05.2025. 2. Heard Mr.R.Nalliyappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that Arulmigu Sri Sakthi Periyamariamman Temple is being maintained and administered for the last 70 years by the village people. While so, by taking advantage of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 16.05.2025 wherein non- hereditary trustees were appointed for another Arulmigu Thangamalai Periyamariamman Temple, Mettur, an attempt is being made to interfere with the affairs of the petitioner temple. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents produced the written instructions received from the second respondent. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: 5. On carefully considering the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record and also considering the written instructions given by the second respondent, it is seen that the appointment of non-hereditary trustees pertained to Arulmigu Thangamalai Periyamariamman Temple, Mettur. There is similarity in the names since the name of the petitioner temple is Arulmigu Sri Sakthi Periyamariamman Temple. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that an attempt is being made by non-hereditary trustees to interfere with the affairs of the temple. The written instructions makes it clear that the appointment of the non-hereditary trustees is only to manage and administer the Arulmigu Thangamalai Periyamariamman Temple, Mettur. That apart, steps are also being taken to question the registration of the name of the petitioner as Sri Sakthi Periyamariamman Temple. 6. In the light of the above stand taken by the respondents, the grievance expressed by the petitioner is sufficiently answered. If the respondents are questioning the registration of the name of the petitioner before the concerned District Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, it has to be independently worked out in the manner known to law. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.