( 1 ) MR. B. Veerappa, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No. 1. ( 2 ) EVEN though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent it is taken up for final disposal. ( 3 ) THE petitioners claim to be the members of the Tourth respondent Wakf Institution. It appears the said Wakf Institution had a byelaw up to the year 1980. Subsequently the second respondent - Board approved the new byelaws framed by the 4th respondent- Wakf Institution. The said order of the second respondent - Board was challenged by filing an appeal before the Wakf Tribunal by some members including the petitioners herein. The Tribunal by its order, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A, allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the second respondent - Board approving the new byelaws and thus restored the old byelaws approved by the second respondent in the year 1980. The 4th respondent has filed an application in the above appeal under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure seeking review. Since nothing transpired after the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, a representation/application was given by the petitioners to the third respondent Wakf Board to hold an election pursuant to the old bye laws. But however nothing transpired. This prompted the petitioners to file a writ petition in WP No. 20267/2005 for a direction to the Wakf Board to hold the elections. Placing the submission of the learned Counsel for the Wakf Board, this Court directed the wakf Board to consider the application of the petitioners to hold an election a copy of the order passed in the writ petition is to be found at Annexure-D. Thereafter in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the wakf Board has given an endorsement, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E, to the effect that an application seeking review is filed before the tribunal and consequently the elections cannot be held till the review petition is disposed of. The question of entertaining the representation to hold an. election in pursuance to the old byelaws does not arise. The said endorsement is questioned in this writ petition. ( 4 ) MR. The question of entertaining the representation to hold an. election in pursuance to the old byelaws does not arise. The said endorsement is questioned in this writ petition. ( 4 ) MR. Kaleemulla Shariff, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that under the Wakf Act, the Tribunal has no power to review its own order. Consequently, he submits that there would be no impediment for the third respondent -Board to consider the representation made by the petitioners to hold election. ( 5 ) APPARENTLY the question whether the tribunal has power to review its own order or not is a matter which is required to be gone into when an order is passed on the said application. At the inception the question whether the Tribunal has got the power to review cannot be gone into in this writ petition. Apparently the third respondent has found that in view of the review application filed before the Tribunal, the question of entertaining the representation/application of the petitioners does not arise andis being deferred. No fault could be found with the endorsement at Annexure-E. It is only after the conclusion of the review proceedings, the application filed by the petitioners to conduct elections under the old bye-laws could be considered. But however, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the review application itself within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Writ petition stands rejected with the above observations. A. Mr. Veerappa, learned Addl. Govt. . Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance, within four weeks. Petition Dismissed.