JUDGMENT : MURALEE KRISHNA S., J. 1. The applicant in W.O.A.No.214 of 2025 on the file of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this MFA under Section 83(9) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (the ‘Waqf Act’ for short), challenging the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed by the appellant in that W.O.A. 2. The appellant claims that he is a member of the Mutawalli family of Velliyott Juma-ath Palli Waqf. The 2 nd respondent had previously filed O.S.No.125 of 2022 before the Tribunal seeking a declaration that the election of the 5 th respondent as President of the Velliyot Juma-ath Palli Paripalana Committee was illegal and void. In that suit, the 2 nd respondent further sought for a declaration that he is the Mutawalli of the Waqf property and a consequential injunction. By Annexure A3 judgment dated 13.01.2025, the Tribunal decreed the suit in favour of the 2 nd respondent, finding that the 5 th respondent is not entitled to continue as President of the 3 rd respondent Committee and directed him to quit his Presidentship. The Committee was directed to elect a new President if there had been a further period in the tenure of that Committee. Against Annexure A3 judgment, respondents 3 to 5 approached this Court by filing CRP (WAKF) No.16 of 2025 and vide Annexure A4 order dated 12.08.2025, this Court disposed of that revision petition directing the members of the family of the Mutawalli to submit a request to the Kerala State Waqf Board (the ‘Board’ for short) immediately for holding the election strictly as per the bye-laws, and thereafter the Board in accordance with law, by hearing any affected party if at all deem it appropriate shall promulgate the schedule of election by appointing the Returning Officer. Further, the Board was directed to appoint an interim Mutawalli forthwith, only for a limited period, for the purpose of conducting a smooth election. Subsequently, the appellant submitted Annexure A5 request dated 29.09.2025 before the Board as directed in Annexure A4 order of this Court. 2.1. Further, the Board was directed to appoint an interim Mutawalli forthwith, only for a limited period, for the purpose of conducting a smooth election. Subsequently, the appellant submitted Annexure A5 request dated 29.09.2025 before the Board as directed in Annexure A4 order of this Court. 2.1. Meanwhile, the 2 nd respondent had filed O.P.No.611 of 2025 before the Board against the 3 rd respondent Committee and two others with a prayer to conduct an overall enquiry into the administration and management of the Waqf, audit of its accounts, and to initiate proceedings in the event of misappropriation of Waqf funds or alienation of Waqf property. After the submission of Annexure A5 request by the appellant, the 2 nd respondent filed I.A.No.389 of 2025 in O.P.No.611 of 2025 to conduct the election and to appoint an interim Mutawalli. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had filed their counter statement in the aforesaid I.A. as well as in O.P.No.611 of 2025. The Board thereafter passed Annexure A6 order dated 29.11.2025 in I.A.No.389 of 2025, appointing an interim Mutawalli-cum-Returning Officer till 17.02.2026, purportedly in compliance with the direction of this Court in Annexure A4 order. Challenging Annexure A6 order of the Board, the appellant filed W.O.A.No.214 of 2025 before the Tribunal. In that W.O.A., he filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay Annexure A6 order of the Board. In that I.A., respondent Nos. 3 to 5 supported the appellant, whereas the 2 nd respondent, who is the petitioner in O.P.No.611 of 2025 before the Board, filed a detailed counter, contending that the O.A. as well as the stay petition is not maintainable. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 05.02.2026, dismissed I.A.No.2 of 2025. Being aggrieved, the appellant is now before this Court with this MFA. 3. Heard Shri.R.K.Muraleedharan, the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri. Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala State Waqf Board for the 1 st respondent, Shri. P. K. Ibrahim, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent and Shri. N.M. Madhu, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that Annexure A6 order was passed by the Board based on Annexure A4 order of this Court. It is true that in Annexure A4 order, this Court dismissed the impleading petition filed by the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that Annexure A6 order was passed by the Board based on Annexure A4 order of this Court. It is true that in Annexure A4 order, this Court dismissed the impleading petition filed by the appellant. However, this Court specifically directed the members of the family of the Mutawalli to submit a request to the Board immediately for holding the election strictly as per the bye-laws and thereafter, the Board has to pass orders in accordance with law, by hearing the affected parties. But, Annexure A6 order was passed by the Board without hearing the appellant. The Tribunal in the impugned order, even though found that the Board passed the impugned order without hearing the appellant, did not interfere with Annexure A6 order passed by the Board. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that the appellant is a member of the Mutawalli family, as evident from the gift deed bearing No. 1161 of 1943, which was approved as per Annexure A1 judgment dated 19.10.2019 in W.O.S.No.14 of 2019 of the Tribunal. The aforesaid judgment was confirmed by this Court in Annexure A2 order dated 11.07.2024 in CRP (Wakf) No.11 of 2020. Therefore, the right of the appellant to be heard before passing Annexure A6 order is established, and the Tribunal failed to consider this aspect while passing the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent would submit that the application filed by the appellant to implead him in CRP (Wakf) No.16 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court as per Annexure A4 order. The appellant is not a party to O.P.No.611 of 2025. The Board passed Annexure A6 order strictly in compliance with the directions in Annexure A4 order of this Court, as well as considering Annexure A5 request submitted by the appellant. Annexure A6 order of the Board has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. By pointing out Annexure A7 bye-laws of the Committee and Annexure A8 notice published by the Returning Officer showing the schedule of election, the learned counsel submitted that there is no illegality in Annexure A6 order. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the election as scheduled in Annexure A8 notice was already over, and the declaration of the result could not be effected due to the interim order granted by this Court on 13.02.2026. 6. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the election as scheduled in Annexure A8 notice was already over, and the declaration of the result could not be effected due to the interim order granted by this Court on 13.02.2026. 6. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 addressed arguments supporting the contentions of the appellant. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board would submit that the election was conducted by the interim Mutawalli-cum-Returning Officer appointed by the Board as per Annexure A6 order in accordance with the schedule published in Annexure A8 notice. According to the learned Standing Counsel, in view of Annexure A7 bye-laws, the appellant is not entitled to claim that he is a member of the Mutawalli family. 8. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as the materials placed on record. The appellant is claiming that he is a member of the Mutawalli family of the Waqf Velliyott Juma-ath Palli. According to him, his aforesaid right is evident from the gift deed No. 1161 of 1943 dated 01.06.1943, which got approval in Annexure A1 judgment dated 19.10.2019 in W.O.S.No.14 of 2019 of the Tribunal and the order dated 11.07.2024 in CRP (Wakf) No.11 of 2020 of this Court. According to the appellant, though this Court in Annexure A4 order directed the Board to pass orders on the representation of the members of the Mutawalli family for holding the election after hearing the affected party, Annexure A6 order was passed without hearing him and hence highly prejudicial. 9. From the documents produced along with this appeal, we notice that W.O.S No.125 of 2022 was filed by the 2 nd respondent before the Tribunal for a declaration that the election of the 5 th respondent as the President of the 3 rd respondent Committee is illegal and to declare the 2 nd respondent as the Mutawalli. The Tribunal vide Annexure A3 judgment allowed the first prayer by holding that the 5 th respondent is not a member of the Mutawalli family and hence cannot be elected as the President of the Committee as per the terms of the bye-laws. However, the claim for the declaration of the 2 nd respondent as the Mutawalli was not allowed in Annexure A3 judgment. In W.O.S. No.125 of 2022, the appellant was not a party. However, the claim for the declaration of the 2 nd respondent as the Mutawalli was not allowed in Annexure A3 judgment. In W.O.S. No.125 of 2022, the appellant was not a party. Challenging Annexure A3 judgment in W.O.S.No.125 of 2022, respondents 3 to 5, though filed CRP (Wakf) No.16 of 2025 before this Court, the appellant was not a party to that CRP either. The self-impleading application filed by the appellant as I.A.No.2 of 2025 in CRP (Wakf) No.16 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court by Annexure A4 order, holding that the interest of the appellant as well as the respondents- plaintiffs therein is identical, subject to the compliance of bye-laws which govern the election of the President only amongst the members of the family. In Annexure A4 order, this Court directed the members of the Mutawalli family to submit a request to the Board for holding the election strictly as per the bye-laws, and the Board was consequently directed to conduct the election by appointing the Returning Officer after hearing the affected party. Thereafter, the appellant submitted Annexure A5 representation before the Chief Executive Officer of the Board. Subsequently, in the pending O.P., i.e., O.P.No.611 of 2025 filed by the 2 nd respondent, he filed I.A.No.389 of 2025 with the very same request of conducting the election. Taking note of Annexure A5 representation submitted by the appellant and the interlocutory application filed by the 2 nd respondent, the Board passed Annexure A6 order appointing an interim Mutawalli-cum-Returning Officer. The Returning Officer thereafter issued Annexure A8 notice scheduling the election, and as per the submissions made at the Bar, the election was also conducted as scheduled in Annexure A8 notice. 10. The grievance of the appellant, as stated above, is that Annexure A6 order was passed by the Board without hearing him. But as noted by the Tribunal, in Annexure A6 order, the Board has noted that the appellant has filed Annexure A5 request before the Divisional Office, Kozhikode, for conducting the election. It was based on I.A.No.389 of 2025 filed by the 2 nd respondent in O.P.No.611 of 2025 in which the appellant is not a party, as well as Annexure A5 representation submitted by the appellant, Annexure A6 order was passed by the Board appointing an interim Mutawalli-cum-Returning Officer for a limited period for administering the Waqf and conducting the elections. It was based on I.A.No.389 of 2025 filed by the 2 nd respondent in O.P.No.611 of 2025 in which the appellant is not a party, as well as Annexure A5 representation submitted by the appellant, Annexure A6 order was passed by the Board appointing an interim Mutawalli-cum-Returning Officer for a limited period for administering the Waqf and conducting the elections. Therefore, it is clear that the Annexure A5 representation of the appellant was also considered by the Board while passing Annexure A6 order. 11. Challenging Annexure A6 order of the Board, the appellant filed W.O.A.No.214 of 2025, which is pending before the Tribunal. In that W.O.A., the claim of the appellant that he is a member of the Mutawalli family based on the recitals in the gift deed bearing No.1161 of 1943 and Annexure A1 judgment and Annexure A2 order is under challenge. They are matters of evidence that have to be considered in detail by the Tribunal in the pending W.O.A. However, the administration of the Waqf cannot be left in a vacuum till such a decision is taken by the Tribunal, on the claim of the appellant. Prima facie, it is proved from the materials placed on record that Annexure A6 order was passed by the Board in compliance with Annexure A4 order of this Court after considering Annexure A5 representation submitted by the appellant also. It is only for a limited period that the interim Mutawalli-cum-Returning Officer was appointed by the Board. The election has also been completed in terms of Annexure A8 notice issued by the interim Mutawalli-cum-Returning Officer. The declaration of the result of the election was postponed only due to the interim stay granted by this Court in this MFA. While considering the entire facts and circumstances, in the light of the materials placed on record, we are of the opinion that there is no necessity to interfere with Annexure A6 order of the Board, which was refused to be stayed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 05.02.2026. If the appellant is aggrieved by the election conducted by the interim Mutawalli-cum-Returning Officer appointed by the Board, the remedy available to him is to challenge the election in a properly instituted election petition. Therefore, we hold that this MFA is liable to be dismissed. If the appellant is aggrieved by the election conducted by the interim Mutawalli-cum-Returning Officer appointed by the Board, the remedy available to him is to challenge the election in a properly instituted election petition. Therefore, we hold that this MFA is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this MFA stands dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of the appellant to challenge the election conducted by the interim Mutawalli-cum-Returning Officer appointed by the Board as per Annexure A6 order, in accordance with law.