Judgment :- Aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondent Board dated 12.8.2002 removing the petitioner from the office of Mutawalli for an alleged irregularity said to have been committed by the petitioner attracting Section 64(1)(h) of the Wakfs Act, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and resolving to appoint the Superintendent of Wakf, Chennai, as the Executive Officer of Wakf and further directing the petitioner to hand over the charges of petitioner as Wakf and possession of such records, accounts, movable and immovable properties, including the cash, to the Executive Officer immediately, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed in Item No.104/2002 in R.C.No.2537/C1/2002/TVLR dated 12.8.2002 on the file of the respondent Board and to quash the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting my attention to Section 64(3) of the Act, contends that no action shall be taken by the Board under Section 64(1) of the Act unless it has held an enquiry into the matter in a prescribed manner and the decision has to be taken by a majority of not less than 2/3rd members of the Board. He also contends that in the instant case, the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity and no enquiry was conducted before removing him and therefore, the impugned proceedings is contrary to Section 64(3) of the Act and therefore, the same is illegal. 3. Admittedly, against the removal of the petitioner from the office of Mutawalli, an appeal lies to the Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act. 4. If that be so, it may not be proper for this Court to entertain the above writ petition as the petitioner is entitled to approach the Tribunal and substantiate his case that all the allegations levelled against him for removing him from the office of Mutawalli are false and incorrect. 4. If that be so, it may not be proper for this Court to entertain the above writ petition as the petitioner is entitled to approach the Tribunal and substantiate his case that all the allegations levelled against him for removing him from the office of Mutawalli are false and incorrect. However, since serious allegations are made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity or any enquiry was held by the Board before passing the impugned order, while permitting the petitioner to move an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and directing the Tribunal to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the appeal expeditiously, in any event, within ninety days from the date of filing of the appeal, I am also obliged to direct the respondent to maintain Status quo till the petitioner files an appeal before the Tribunal, within the time mentioned above and to permit the petitioner to raise all the grounds that are agitated in the above writ petition, including the violation of Sections 64 and 65 of the Act and to seek interim relief, if he is so advised, and the same shall be considered by the Tribunal, on merits. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. WPMP No.52825 of 2002 is closed.