M.V. Muralidaran, J.

The applicant in O.A. No. 10 of 2003, on the file of the I Assistant Judge, (Wakf Tribunal) City Civil Court, Chennai, is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order passed in O.A.No.10 of 2003, dated 30.04.2008, on the file of the I Assistant Judge, (Wakf Tribunal), City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The case of the petitioner/applicant is that he has filed the appeal in O.A.No.10 of 2003 before the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court (Wakf Tribunal), City Civil Court, Chennai-104, challenging the order passed by the first respondent Tamil Nadu Wakf Board in WEA.No.1/90/E5/MDS dated 24.07.2003 served on the applicant's counsel on 05.09.2003 through the postal Department and postal cover of which is enclosed as proof, within 30 days from the date of service as contemplated under Section 64(4) of the Wakf Act, 1995.

3. The case of the petitioner is that one Mr. Syed Ali has filed a case in W.E.A.No.17/87 against this petitioner before the first respondent Wakf Board alleging that the petitioner/applicant for removal of him from the Mutawalliship. The said Mr. Syed Ali happened to be the President of Muslim Podhu Nala Sangam and he also instigated the Sangam Secretary one Mr. Mohammed Hussain to file W.E.A.No.1/90 against this petitioner for removal. Later, on 06.09.1990, Mr. Syed Ali was died, therefore, the application filed by him in W.E.A.No.17/87 became in fructuous.

4. The petitioner has further come forward by saying that the averment in W.E.A.No.1/90, the Secretary Mr. Mohammed Hussain had made several allegations against this petitioner and the Special Officer of the Wakf Board elaborately considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and dismissed the said application on 27.08.1992 on the ground of devoid of merits. Thereafter, the said Mohammed Hussain has filed an appeal before the Government under Section 43(4)(A) of Wakf Act, 1954 and consider his case the Government in his order in G.O.515 CT and RE Department dated 29.11.1996 directed the respondent Wakf Board to enquire into the complaints and to send a detailed report to the Government. Thereafter, the Government further in his letter dated 07.09.1998 clarified that the allegations of Mohammed Hussain may be enquired into and action may be taken to review the earlier decision if necessary.

5. The petitioner further states that subsequently the Government has remanded back the matter to the respondent Wakf Board to enquire into and take action to review the earlier decision of the Board, if necessary and thereafter, the Wakf Board has permitted the said Mohammed Hussain to file fresh submission before the Board on 22.01.2003 and to review the order of the Wakf Board dated 29.01.1990. This petitioner further states that he has not aware of the above said Government orders and no notice or an opportunity was given to the Government. Therefore, this petitioner requested the Board to furnish copies, but the same was also declined by the Board. When there is no power under the Wakf Act for the Board to review its order, the order of the Government is remanded the matter to the Wakf Board without setting aside the earlier decision is wrong and the Wakf Board cannot review its order, particularly when it has not rendered its finding as to the necessity. Therefore, the prayer sought for by Mohammed Hussain in his fresh submissions on 22.01.2003 cannot be entertained and since it is not maintainable and the copies of the same had not been served on the petitioner. Therefore, the Wakf Board has passed the order in WEA.No.1/90/E5/MDS dated 24.07.2003 stating that the petitioner had no right to give power of attorney to his wife to look after the day to day affairs of the Wakf due to his business tours to various places and the Board also states that it was done without the knowledge of the Board, since, the Board says that the petitioner is not entitled to give power of attorney under the Act. But, the petition