MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision petition, the orders dated 19-11-2001 made by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. 6 of 1998 is challenged on various grounds.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the son of the late Abdul Gaffoor, who worked as Muthawalli of the Dargah Hazrath Baji Shaheed (hereinafter referred to as "the Dargah" ). The petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Wakf Board") to notify and recognize him as Muthawalli of the Dargah under Section 29 of the Wakf Act, 1954 corresponding to Section 42 of the Wakf Act, 1995 as per the direction of this Court in WP No. 2248 of 1997.

( 3 ) PURSUANT to the direction issued by this Court while disposing of WP No. 2248 of 1997, an enquiry was held by appointing an Enquiry Officer Sri Khader Mohiuddin and thereafter it was resolved in the meeting of the Wakf Board to accept the finding of the Enquiry Officer to appoint the petitioner as Muthawalli of the Dargah. Pursuant to the said resolution, the petitioner was appointed as Muthawalli of the Dargah by proceedings F. No. A/1/gnt/138/77 (R3) dated 31-3-1998. Respondent No. 3 herein challenged the appointment of the petitioner under the above proceedings before this Court in WP No. 10403 of 1998, which was disposed of directing the 3rd respondent herein to approach the Wakf Tribunal, and accordingly he preferred an appeal in Appeal No. 6 of 1998 challenging the appointment of the petitioner as Muthawalli of the Dargah.

( 4 ) THE A. P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, by judgment dated 19-11-2001 allowed the appeal and set aside the proceedings dated 31-3-1998 appointing the petitioner herein as Muthawalli of the Dargah holding that the appointment of the petitioner as Muthawalli through the above proceedings is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 63 of the Wakf Act. It is this order, which is challenged before this Court on various grounds.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner Sri M. A. Bari, learned Counsel, submitted that the Tribunal has committed a great error while construing the provisions of Section 63 of the Act and set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Muthawalli of the Dargah only on the ground that his appointment is not in conformity of the provisions of Section 63 of the Act. He submitted that the appointment of the petitioner could not have been set aside by the Tribunal only on the technicality and therefore, it requires interference by this Court in the revision petition filed under Section 83 (9) of the Act.

( 6 ) ON the contrary Sri Mirza Imamulla Baig, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, which is Mujawara Association, represented by its President, submitted that appointment of Muthawalli, when made under Section 63 of the Act, the Appointing Authority shall indicate the term of the office and in the absence of any term being specified in the appointment order, such an order is unsustainable as is evident from the provisions of Section 63 of the Act. He further stated that neither the petitioner has any deed nor right to be appointed as Muthawalli and the appointment made without specifying the term of the office and without specifying conditions is unsustainable and the Tribunal has rightly set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Muthawalli and no interference is required.

( 7 ) I have also heard Sri Subhani, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/a. P. Wakf Board also in this regard.

( 8 ) ON hearing of the learned Counsel for the parties, the point for consideration is, whether the appointment made in favour of the petitioner as Muthawalli of the Dargah - by proceedings F. No. A1/gnt/138/77, dated 31-3-1998 is in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Act?

( 9 ) THE relevant para in the proceedings F. No. A1/gnt/138/77, dated 31-3-1998 appointing the petitioner as Muthawalli of the Dargah reads as under:"the Muthawalli should discharge his legitimate duties in accord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document