ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 22.12.2015 impugned at Annexure-H to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the administration of the Hazrat Syed Peer Jamal Shah Makkan, Charminar Masjid Road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. The petitioner in that regard is also seeking that the order dated 21.06.2014 passed by the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf be quashed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner initially was in administration of the Wakf concerned. After approval of the Scheme, the administration has been handed over to the petitioner through the order dated 24.05.2014. It is the further case of the petitioner that even while the petitioner and his Committee as set up through order dated 02.06.2014 were managing the affairs of the Darga, the respondents have by the illegal order dated 21.06.2014 reconstituted the Managing Committee which is impermissible in law. In that view, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to carry on the administration of the Darga. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in such circumstance when the petitioner had approached the Wakf Tribunal in the suit filed in O.S. No.4/2015, the Tribunal ought to have kept these aspects in view while considering the application in I.A.No.3 whereby the petitioner had sought injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the administration of the wakf by the petitioner. In that regard, it is contended that the order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Wakf Tribunal is not justified and all actions of the respondents are contrary to the provisions contained in Section 69 of the Karnataka Wakf Act, 1995. Hence, it is contended that the orders impugned are liable to be set aside and the petitioner should be permitted to carry on the administration. 4. The respondents have filed their objection statement. The case as put forth by the petitioner is disputed. In the light of the contention that is put forth, presently though in the instant petition the petitioner has also assailed the order dated 21.06.2014, what is necessary to be noticed herein is that the present petition arises in view of an order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Wakf Tribunal in O.S.No.4/2015. 5. In the light of the contention that is put forth, presently though in the instant petition the petitioner has also assailed the order dated 21.06.2014, what is necessary to be noticed herein is that the present petition arises in view of an order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Wakf Tribunal in O.S.No.4/2015. 5. If that aspect of the matter is kept in view, what is also to be kept in perspective is the fact that the petitioner in fact had made out a grievance with regard to reconstitution of the Committee through the order dated 21.06.2014 by filing a revision before the Secretary to Government of Karnataka. The revision petition was considered and disposed of by the order dated 28.09.2013. In the course of the order in the revision petition, the revisional authority has also adverted to the issue relating to the challenge made to the order dated 21.06.2014 which according to the petitioner is contrary to the provision of law. The revisional authority though had referred to the same, has held the revision petition as not maintainable since those aspects of the matter are to be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. 6. In that context when the suit had been thereafter filed by the petitioner before the Wakf Tribunal in O.S.No.4/2015, the petitioner was required to assail the said order taking note of the liberty that had been indicated in the revision petition. In that circumstance, even for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion as to whether the injunction order is to be granted or not, the correctness or otherwise of that order being the relief based on which the consequential reliefs are sought was to be taken note and thereafter the order was to be passed. On the other hand, the complaint essentially is to the effect to seek for injunctive relief relating to the possession as the main relief. It is in that light, I.A. No.3 was filed before the Tribunal seeking for temporary injunction. 7. On the other hand, the complaint essentially is to the effect to seek for injunctive relief relating to the possession as the main relief. It is in that light, I.A. No.3 was filed before the Tribunal seeking for temporary injunction. 7. In that background if the order impugned is taken into consideration, the Tribunal has referred to the rival contentions and in that regard in a circumstance where the Tribunal was to consider the nature of possession as on the date of filing the suit so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the temporary injunction is to be granted, the order dated 21.06.2014 was kept in view and in that light since the suit had been subsequently filed, the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the possession as on the date of filing the suit has not been established. Therefore, it is clear that the Tribunal has taken into consideration these aspects of the matter and passed the impugned order. 8. When the main matter relating to all the aspects is still pending before the Tribunal and the petitioner is yet to establish the right, this Court in the limited scope available in a writ petition relating to such matter is not required to interfere with the order dated 22.12.2015. Further, since the suit is pending before the Tribunal and the grievance as put forth by the petitioner relating to reconstitution of the committee on 21.06.2014 is also to be raised therein, it would still be open for the petitioner to seek for an appropriate relief in the suit. In that view, the instant petition being devoid of merit stands disposed of.