ORDER : (D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.) This Writ petition is filed with the prayer of Certiorarified Mandamus calling the entire records pertaining to the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 made in G.O.Ms.No.288 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to handover the possession of the administration of the Sri Balamurugan Temple situated at Porur village to the petitioner and pass such other orders. 2. Heard Mr.Singaravelan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner society has filed a Revision aggrieved by the order of appointment of a fit person with reference to the temple in question. As a matter of fact the entire temple was put up only by the petitioner Sabha and its President S.Damodharan was only taking care of the temple from the inception. While so suddenly making allegations, without conducting any enquiry whatsoever, a fit person is appointed. The said exercise is not in accordance with Section 49 of the Act. Secondly, when a person is in charge of a temple be it by way of express appointment or by defacto taking care of the temple, if the authorities want to exercise the power under the Act to appoint a fit person on certain charges, the same cannot be done without affording an opportunity of hearing to the said person. The order permanently removes the petitioner from the possession of the temple and administration of the temple. The petitioner was associated with the temple for a long period of time and suddenly he is removed unceremoniously without his version being heard at any point of time. The revision authority omitted to consider the very many grounds raised in the revision and answered without proper application of mind. The question whether the temple is a private temple or not is still at large before the Civil Court. First Appeal filed by the petitioner is pending. Under the circumstances, the order impugned in the Writ Petition cannot stand and therefore, this Court to interfere. 4. The question whether the temple is a private temple or not is still at large before the Civil Court. First Appeal filed by the petitioner is pending. Under the circumstances, the order impugned in the Writ Petition cannot stand and therefore, this Court to interfere. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 pointing out to the counter filed in the earlier connected matter and pointing out the extraction of the counter affidavit that is filed in the revision before the Commissioner in RP.No.191 of 2017, would submit that it is the case of the petitioner that the temple is a private temple and HR & CE should not interfere in the same. He had filed OS.No.296 of 2005 and the same is withdrawn by him. Therefore, the temple is not a private temple. The petitioner also filed an application to declare himself as the hereditary trustee in OA.No.2 of 1988 and he had also withdrawn the same on 01.06.2005. It is the case of the respondent that the said suit is also withdrawn. Thereafter when the authorities appointed a fit person by an order dated 13.06.2005 the petitioner again challenged the same by filing another suit in O.S.No.463 of 2006 and the same was also withdrawn by him. Thereafter the present order is passed only changing the fit person by way of transfer. The fit person originally appointed being the Executive Officer since came to be working at Sri Sakthi Vinayagar Thirukoil as his headquarters there was difficulty for him and therefore in his place the Executive Officer of Porur Arulmighu Ramnatheeswarar Temple himself was appointed as a fit person. It is this order which is now challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, when the petitioner's earlier grounds have been deemed to be rejected on account of his withdrawal of the suit, there cannot be any grievance with reference to the change of fit person. There is no stigma that is caused in the original order of appointing the fit person or in the present order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 6. Admittedly this Writ Petition arises out of the order dated 04.06.2009 and the said order is extracted hereunder: 7. There is no stigma that is caused in the original order of appointing the fit person or in the present order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 6. Admittedly this Writ Petition arises out of the order dated 04.06.2009 and the said order is extracted hereunder: 7. It can be seen that the order only changed the Executive Officer who was appointed as the fit person. As a matter of fact, earlier when fit person was appointed on 13.06.2005 by which the petitioner who claims to be defacto in charge of the administration of the temple was dislodged from the temple, the petitioner chose to file a Civil Suit in OS.No.463 of 2006. Admittedly, the said suit is withdrawn and therefore, the grounds raised by the learned Senior Counsel with reference to the same cannot now be countenanced. 8. As far as the next ground of stigma is concerned, it can be seen that the impugned order in the present Writ Petition does not contain any stigma. When already the petitioner was removed from the administration by an earlier order and that has become final by the petitioner withdrawing the suit, the said grounds which are supposed to have been taken in the said suit and withdrawn, cannot be now permitted to be raised once again taking advantage of the factum of the change in the fit person. Accordingly, there is no error in the revisional authorities confirming the order dated 04.06.2009. The other alarming facts are that the temple is built in the land belonging to M/s.Arulmigu Ramanatheeswarar Temple, the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit claiming to be a private temple. In any event, the said suit is also now dismissed. Similarly, he has also claimed Hereditary Trusteeship in respect of the said temple and has also withdrawn the petition. Therefore, the varying self contradictory stands that are taken by the petitioner has also be taken note of by this Court. 9. In any event, since the order impugned in the revision petition is only the change of the fit person and the grounds raised by the learned Senior Counsel cannot be taken into account for impugning the same when the petitioner has approached the Civil Court. 9. In any event, since the order impugned in the revision petition is only the change of the fit person and the grounds raised by the learned Senior Counsel cannot be taken into account for impugning the same when the petitioner has approached the Civil Court. The matters have become final and even his claim for Hereditary Trusteeship was withdrawn by him unilaterally and the prayer in the Writ Petition cannot be acceded to and finding no merits, the petition stands dismissed. 10. Needless to state that the respondent authorities cannot continue with the fit person for ever and they shall take up the exercise of appointing the trustees as expeditiously as possible in any event not later than 12 weeks from the date of the receipt/production of the website uploaded copy of this order without waiting for the certified copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.