1. The Petitioner has focused the instant Writ Petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st Respondent in Se.Mu.Order No.8485/08/A5/Trichy dated 01.03.2013 and to quash the same. Further, the Petitioner has sought for issuance of direction to the 1st Respondent in approving the election of the Petitioner as Muthavalli of the Jahir Asara Maqboora Wakf of Valigandapuram, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District.

2. The 1st Respondent/Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chennai, in his impugned proceedings dated 01.03.2013, has passed an order of 9 Members Interim Committee for the Jahir Asara Maqboora Wakf of Valikandapuram from the date of Board's Resolution viz., from 03.01.2013 for a period of one year. Challenging the said order dated 01.03.2013 of the 1st Respondent in appointing Interim Committee in respect of Jahir Asara Maqboora Wakf of Valikandapuram and further praying for issuance of a direction by this Court to the 1st Respondent in approving his election as Petitioner as Muthavalli for the aforesaid Wakf, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order appointing the Interim Committee is not known to the Wakf Act, 1995, besides the same being without jurisdiction.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the Respondents 1 and 2 failed to appreciate that the Petitioner was duly elected Muthavalli and the Committee was approved by the 1st Respondent in the year 2005, for a period of three years. Later, the election was duly conducted and that the Petitioner was elected as Muthavalli. As such, it is submitted on the side of the Petitioner, the Petitioner and other Committee Members are entitled to hold office for a term of three years and till the newly elected body assumes office. Moreover, the approval of the same is pending before the 1st Respondent and when that being the factual position, the impugned order dated 01.03.2013 in appointing an Interim Management Committee is uncalled for one and also it is against the very scheme of the Wakf Act.

4. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects a legal plea that the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board as the superintendence over the Wakfs and while exercising the powers in terms of Section 67 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Muthavalli ought to be put on notice and after passing the order of supersession only the question of nominating a new or interim committee will arise for consideration. Viewed in that angle, the impugned order dated 01.03.2013 in favour of the Respondents 3 to 11 is not sustainable, in the eye of law.

5. That apart, the plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the 1st Respondent in appointing the Respondents 3 to 11 as Interim Committee Members is tainted with malafides and passed for extraneous considerations.

6. According to the Petitioner, the rival groups have approached the Wakf Tribunal questioning his authority and power to continue as Muthavalli and the Wakf Board is also a party Respondent. The Tribunal has declined to pass an order of injunction against the Petitioner, finding that he is serving as Muthavalli.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 submits that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable both on law and facts. Further, the suit in W.O.P.No.5 of 2011 before the Learned Principal Judge, Trichy (Wakf Tribunal) filed by one Syed Kasi and others in regard to the appointment of Muthavalli to the wakf, Valikandapuram, Perambalur District is pending and therefore, the Petitioner is not justified to file the present Writ Petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 forcibly contends that as on date the Writ Petitioner is not the Muthavalli of the aforesaid Wakf in question as the term of office of earlier Committee got expired and the Interim Committee ha