Judgment :- The Wakf Board in its order dated 29. 2005 has taken over the management of the Wakf under question for a period of six months from 29. 2005 from the President and other Office bearers and the secretary, who was a managing trustee as per the trust deed. An application has been preferred against the said order of the Wakf Board before the appellate Authority/Tribunal (I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai) in O.A.No.11 of 2005. The learned appellate Authority/Tribunal had confirmed the order passed by the Wakf Board, which has necessitated this revision. 2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar appearing of the revision petitioners would challenge the impugned order of the Wakf Board dated 29. 2005 on the ground that only under two circumstances, the order under Section 65 of the Wakf Act can be passed and those two circumstances are (1) If suitable person is not available to be appointed as Muthavali (2) If the appointment of the Muthavali was prejudicial to the interest of the Wakf, and that there is absolutely no material on record to show that the above said two requirements under Section 65 of the Act have been complied with warranting an order under Section 65 of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that the said order was passed mainly on the ground of allegation and counter allegation against the nine Muthavalies. It has further been observed in the impugned order that the Wakf in question was not properly maintained by the trustees. Only on that ground the management of the Wakf was taken away by the Wakf Board under the impugned order for six months. Now it is fairly admitted by the learned Senior Counsel that six months period stipulated under the impugned order has already been expired by the end of March-2006 and nothing survives in this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the Wakf Board Mr.Sirajudeen would contend that the paramount importance is the welfare of the Wakf and that some arrangements shall be made by this Court for the proper functioning of the Wakf. If the Wakf Board has got any grievance against the running of the Wakf, the remedy open to them is to follow the provisions contemplated under Section 64 to 67 of the Wakf Act. 4. If the Wakf Board has got any grievance against the running of the Wakf, the remedy open to them is to follow the provisions contemplated under Section 64 to 67 of the Wakf Act. 4. At this juncture the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 8 would focus the attention of this Court to the order passed in WP.No.40100 of 2005 & WPMP.No.42995 of 2005 that the petitioner – K.M.Basheer, who had challenged the impugned order before this Court, was directed to approach the Tribunal. The said order was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.341 of 2006 dated 13. 2006. But the Division Bench had set aside the imposition of costs on the petitioner by the learned Single Judge. Now, as correctly represented by the learned Senior Counsel, there is nothing survives in this Civil Revision Petition since the impugned order of the Wakf Board itself has expired and the same is not in force as on today. 5. The learned counsel for the Wakf Board represents that Wakf Board may be given liberty to take appropriate action against the Wakf. Under the provisions of Wakf Act, the Wakf Board has been empowered with necessary power and the Wakf Board can take appropriate action as contemplated under the provisions of Wakf Act within four months from today, if the mismanagement of the Wakf by the Managing trustee found continued. 6. It is further represented on behalf of the revision petitioners that even after the expiry of the period stipulated under the impugned order, the Wakf Board has not handed over the management to the trustees. If it is so, the Wakf Board has to entrust the management to the President, who in turn will hand over the same to the Managing Trustee. The learned counsel for the Wakf Board requests a weeks time to hand over the management. His request is acceded. With the above observation, this civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.