JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P16 order dated 30.08.2024 issued by the 2 nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2 nd respondent Commissioner to forthwith take action against the respondents 4 and 5 namely the Executive Officer of the temple and the 5 th respondent Temple Renovation Committee by invoking the powers under Section 19(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 ; a declaration that in the light of Ext.P8 audit report dated 16.08.2022 as well as in the light of Ext.P14 circular dated 28.02.1996, the 5 th respondent Committee is incompetent to continue as the Renovation Committee for various works under Sree Mundayamprambu @ Tharakkumeetha Bhagavathy Kshetram, Mundayamparambu. Ext.P16 order of the 2 nd respondent Commissioner is one issued pursuant to the direction contained in the judgment of this Court dated 23.04.2024 in W.P.(C)No.16402 of 2024. 2. On 21.10.2024, when this writ petition came up for admission, additional respondents 7 and 8 were impleaded by the order in I.A.No.1 of 2024. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1 st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2, 3 and 6. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 4, 5 and additional respondents 7 and 8, returnable within four weeks. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions. 3. On 18.11.2024, the 5 th respondent entered appearance through counsel, who sought time to file counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent and also the learned counsel for the additional respondents 7 and 8 also sought time to file counter affidavits. 4. On 10.12.2024, the 4 th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(c) documents. On 06.01.2025, the 2 nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 04.01.2025. On 07.01.2025, the 5 th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(k) documents. 5. On 14.01.2025, respondents 7 and 8 have filed a counter affidavit producing therewith Ext.R8(a) document. On 06.01.2025, the 2 nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 04.01.2025. On 07.01.2025, the 5 th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(k) documents. 5. On 14.01.2025, respondents 7 and 8 have filed a counter affidavit producing therewith Ext.R8(a) document. Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit read thus: “It is submitted that Exhibit P16 to the extent it rejects the claim made by the petitioner towards the post of Pattali and his claim that pattali is the hereditary trustee is not liable to be interfered with. The correctness or otherwise of Exhibit P2 scheme is pending consideration of this Hon’ble Court in MFA (HRCE) 77/2011 and it is prayed that administration of the temple be directed to be conducted in accordance with the scheme subject to the outcome of the above appeal. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs to these respondents.” 6. On 30.01.2025, the petitioner has filed a reply, producing therewith Exts.P18 to P21 documents. 7. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2, 3 and 6, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent, the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent and the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of order No.H5- 7577/2023/MDB dated 13.02.2025 issued by the 2 nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, whereby the request made by the 5 th respondent Committee for extension of the term of the Renovation Committee stands rejected. The aforesaid order reads thus: 9. The learned counsel for the 5 th respondent would submit that the 5 th respondent is also in receipt of a copy of the aforesaid order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the 2 nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. The audited accounts of the Committee shall be submitted to the 4 th respondent Executive Officer within a period of three weeks. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the order dated 13.02.2025 issued by the 2 nd respondent Commissioner, the grievance of the petitioner against the 5 th respondent committee stands redressed to certain extent. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the order dated 13.02.2025 issued by the 2 nd respondent Commissioner, the grievance of the petitioner against the 5 th respondent committee stands redressed to certain extent. Now what remains is the audit of the accounts of the 5 th respondent Committee. 11. Having considered the submissions made at the bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, taking note of the aforesaid order dated 13.02.2025 and by recording the undertaking given by the 5 th respondent Temple Renovation Committee that the audited accounts of the Committee shall be submitted before the 4 th respondent Executive Officer within a period of three weeks. On receipt of the audited accounts, the 4 th respondent Executive Officer shall submit the same to the Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Malabar Devaswom Board Audit, for statutory audit. The Senior Deputy Director shall complete the audit strictly in accordance with law.