Writ application filed against the order of the Board.

1. The petitioner is the trustee and Mutavalli of Osmania Mosque, Chintadripet, which, according to the petitioner, was built 100 years ago by his grand father, late Tanjore Mohammad Usman Sahib. It appears, there are four shops in the front portion of the mosque and it is stated in the affidavit that the income from it ( sic ) was intended for and utilised by the petitioner solely for the maintenance of the mosque. The founder also seems to have purchased two other properties, namely, Nos. 21 and 22 Agraharam St., Chintadripet and at present there are about nine shops in those two properties. The affidavit of the petitioner further states that the founder utilised a portion of the income from these two properties whenever necessary for the expenses of the mosque but the bulk of the income therefrom was being utilised, for his family and for distribution among the members of the founders family, called the beneficiaries. On these allegations, the contention of the petitioner was that these two properties constitute what is called ‘Wakf-al-aulad, under the Muslim Law. The Wakf-Board by a notice, dt. 2nd August, 1977 required the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from Mutavalliship and why another Mutavalli or ad hoc Committee of management should not be appointed and action taken against him for various acts of omissions and commissions mentioned in the notice. He was also asked to show cause why the management of the mosque should not be taken over and directly managed by the Board till the enquiry into the several allegations against him is finally disposed of or till such time as the necessity for such direct management continues whichever is later. The petitioner had submitted his explanation which is in the process of enquiry. When this enquiry was pending one Aziz the 4th respondent herein, filed two applications before the Board, one for the removal of the petitioner from Mutavalliship and the other for framing a scheme. A notice was issued in those petitions of Aziz on 4th August, 1977 to the petitioner requiring him to appear for an enquiry on 8th August, 1977. The enquiry was to be held in the office of the Board at No. 2, Pulla Road Avenue which is far away from the mosque. It appears that on 8th August, 1977 when the enquiry was going on, a huge crowd entered the Court hall and created some trouble and disturbance. Taking it that there is too much tension and that this incident was sure information that the mosque and its administration is not conducted properly, the Board made an order on 8th August, 1977 that in the interest of the ‘Jamat’ and the mosque administration the Board feels that a short time taking over the mosque by itself for direct management and administration as a temporary measure is desirable and such action was accordingly taken under the provision of S. 45 read with S. 15 of the Wakf Act. The petitioner was intimated that the Wakf Board is thus taking over the management for a period of two months. It is against this order of the Board the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that under the provisions of the Wakf Act pleading an enquiry into an application for removal of a trustee or for framing of a scheme, it is open to the Wakf Board to take over possession and management of the mosque and its properties if it considers that in the interests of proper maintenance, control and administration of the Wakf, it is necessary to do so. In this connection, he referred to the provisions of S. 15 and in particular S. 15 (2) (a), 42, 43, 43-A and 45 of the Wakf Act, 1954. S. 15 (1) dealing with the functions of the Board states that the general superintendence of all wakfs in a State shall vest in the Board and it shall be the duty of the Board to exercise its powers under the Act as to ensure that the Wakf