T.B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The management of Kanjiramattom Jama-ath Mosque, hereinafter referred to as the 'Wakf, was subject matter of O.S. No. 97 of 1101 M.E. in the Court of the District Judge, Anjikaimal; hereinafter 'Anjikaimal Court'; filed after obtaining the Diwan's sanction under S. 523 C.P.C. as it then stood. That led to framing of a Scheme approved by that Court; for short, 'Scheme'; for future management of that Wakf. That Scheme provided, inter alia, that the management of the Wakf shall be conducted by the manager appointed by Anjikaimal Court and he shall be subject to the control of that Court and shall be liable to be dismissed only by the order of that Court. He was required to keep correct account of the income and expenditure and submit the accounts to that Court for scrutiny. The Yogam of the said Wakf is a body composed of the heads of the family ties mentioned in Annexure E to that Scheme. That Yogam was to depute four members, hereinafter referred, to as the 'Scheme members', of whom two members shall be from family ties of defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, to help in the management of the Kodikuthu festival. The Scheme further provided that Anjikaimal Court had a general power of supervision over the temporal affairs of the Wakf. These Original Petitions are instituted by the 'Scheme members' of the Wakf stated to have been appointed in terms of the Scheme framed by Anjikaimal Court. They challenge the order issued by the Wakf Tribunal by which permission was granted to conduct audit of the accounts of the Wakf under S. 47 of the Wakf Act, 1995; for short, 1995 Act', and direction was issued to the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala State Wakf Board; 'Board', for short, to frame a scheme for administration of that Wakf as provided under S. 69 of the 1995 Act and to produce it for approval of the Tribunal.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in these Original Petitions and the learned standing counsel for the Board.

3. The Wakf is covered by the aforenoted Scheme framed by Anjikaimal Court. That Wakf is one in relation to which that Scheme had been made by that court of law much before the commencement of the 1995 Act and also the Act of 1954 which preceded it on the subject of wakfs. Therefore, it is a Wakf for the purpose of sub-section (1) of S. 32 of the 1995 Act, going by the Explanation to S. 32(1). So much so, the provisions of S. 32 of the 1995 Act confer power on the Board and enjoin on it the function to be in superintendence of that Wakf as well; and to ensure that the said Wakf is properly managed, controlled and administered and the income thereof is duly applied to the objects and for the purposes for which that Wakf was created or intended. The provision in sub-section (1) of S. 32 of the 1995 Act authorising the Board and conferring it with the duty to ensure that the income of that Wakf is duly applied to the objects and for the purposes for which that Wakf was created and intended, definitely carries with it the power to conduct audit; since otherwise, the power to ascertain and ensure that the income has been duly applied for such purposes cannot be stated with precision; as is expected of the Board, in terms of that statutory provision. Reverting to S. 47 of the 1995 Act providing for audit of accounts, it unequivocally applies to Kanjiramattom mosque. With these findings, we overrule the argument on behalf of the petitioners that the accounts having been submitted to audit and are being subjected to judicial scrutiny in terms of the Scheme framed by Anjikaimal Court, no further audit by the Board is permissible.

4. Stated to be in obedience with the directions of the District Court as if it is the Court enforcing the Scheme, the Manager pleads to have placed accounts before the District Court, Ernakulam for audit in terms of Ext. P2 as per the Scheme. S. 47 of the 1995 Act does not make any distinction between Wakfs for which Schemes are framed by the Cour