Devendra Kumar Arora, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Sayeed, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 as well as Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for private respondent no.3, one of the complainants against the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 11th January, 2013 contained in Annexure-1 to this writ petition, the Chairman of the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs has considered the complaint application filed by respondents no.3 and 4 and on that basis has stayed earlier order of the Board dated 24.08.2012 whereby the term of the Managing Committee of concerned Waqf situated at village Siswai, Pargana and Tehsil Tulsipur, P.S. Pachperwa, District Balrampur was extended for a period of three years with effect from 11.09.2012 with the petitioner as President of the said Committee. The appointment and supersession of Committee of Management of the Waqf in question is governed by the Waqf Act, 1995 and in view of provision in Section 67, such Committee is to continue to function until it is superseded by the Board or until the expiry of its term as may be specified by the waqf, whichever is earlier. No doubt, the first proviso vests power in the Board to issue directions so as to control and supervise such Committee but in case of improper functioning of such Committee or mismanagement of waqf, the Board has to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 65 (2) of said Act and supersession can be ordered for reasons to be recorded in writing after affording opportunity of hearing. Order of supersession passed by the Board is subject to appeal before the Tribunal. In the facts of the case which are not much in dispute and considering the statutory provisions, we are of the considered view that the Chairman of the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs - respondent no.2 could not have passed an order which has the effect of bringing to an end the functioning of the Committee even before it is superseded by the Board by a final order. However, part of the impugned order directing for issuance of notices to all concerned for hearing on the issue of supersession is in accordance with statutory provision. However, part of the impugned order directing for issuance of notices to all concerned for hearing on the issue of supersession is in accordance with statutory provision. In the facts of the case, the part of the impugned order whereby operation of earlier order dated 24.08.2012 has been stayed, is quashed but with liberty to the Chairman or the Board to proceed with the matter relating to supersession of Committee of Management of which the petitioner is the President and decide the matter in accordance with law. Although we have quashed a part of the impugned order and as a result the Committee of Management headed by the petitioner shall continue to function until it is superseded or until its term expires, it is made clear that under the first proviso to Section 67 of above Act, the Board has sufficient powers to issue directions and orders to the Committee of Management. If the Board issues directions or orders to safeguard the interest of the waqf in question, such instructions shall be binding upon the Committee of Management till the matter of its supersession is decided in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. _____________