P.C.

Presently, I am deciding only the issue whether the Petition pertains to the Single Judge Bench or Division Bench, with reference to the Rule 18 (3) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960. (for short, "the Rules").

2. Thebasic averments of the Petitioner are as under:-

.3. The Petitioner is the present trustee of the "Pir Bagdadi Dargah Dadar Trust", duly registered under the Regn. No.B/438 (BOM) (for short, "the said wakf"), situated at N.C.Kelkar Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 028. The Petitioner is a Sunni Muslim, regularly offers prayer and worship at the Dargah. The Petitioner is integrally concerned with the functioning and welfare of the Trust. The Petitioner is one of four trustees of the wakf, governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short "the Act"), and the Scheme framed by the Bombay High Court for administration thereof. The wakf is seized of the property, inter alia, consisting of a mosque and Dargah. The mosque was built in or about the year 1888, and reconstructed thereafter in the year 1935, pursuant to the repairs

.sanctioned by the Bombay High Court, and further repaired in the year 1997.

4. Respondent No.1 is the present Chief Executive Officer, appointed under Section 23 of the Act, holding office on and from 16th August, 2008, is an authority constituted under the provisions of the Act, having powers, inter-alia, to enquire into the mismanagement of any Wakf in Maharashtra and to take appropriate corrective action/s in that behalf, including resumption of Wakf property, taking over administration and management of the concerned Wakf.

5. Respondent No.2 is the erstwhile Chief Executive Officer, who vacated office on and from 12th May, 2008, and was the Presiding Officer who had heard the Petitioner. Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 and Respondent Nos. 6 to 9, who were the parties to the subject dispute relating to the wakf on and from July, 2007.

6. Respondent No.3 is the Wakf Board, constituted under Section 13 of the Act, and is a Body Corporate and can be sued as such.

7. Respondent No.4 is the State of Maharashtra, through the Revenue and Forest Department, exercising jurisdiction, powers and duties conferred under the Act, inter alia, over the wakf property.

8. Respondent No.5 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, acting, inter alia, through the Executive Engineer, Building Proposal (City-III), E-ward, Mumbai. The Petitioner states that Respondent No.5 is the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, a local authority, constituted under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, acting through its Municipal Commissioner, having his office at Mahapalika Marg, C.S.T., Mumbai-400 001, having powers, inter alia, to take appropriate action against persons violating the Building Regulations, Rules and Bye-Laws of the Corporation.

9. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are the other three trustees of the Wakf.

10. Respondent No.9 is a tenant of Shop No.1, carrying on the business of restaurant "Visawa" therefrom, located in the structure existing on the wakf property, which is adjacent to the mosque.

.11. The Petitioner states that Respondent No.6 to 8 are claiming that they have appointed an additional trustee, one Mr. Irfan Rokadiya, Respondent No.10 herein whose whereabouts are not known nor recorded in any of the records of the wakf to the best of the knowledge and belief of the Petitioner. The Petitioner further states that Respondent No.10 has not acted as trustee of the wakf till date thereof and was not the trustee at the relevant time but is joined since the Petitioner is seeking to set aside his appointment as being malafide to overcome the Petitioner’s dissent and gain a majority in the wakf management, and the appointing is also a fraud on the Scheme framed by the

.Bombay High Court.

12. Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 claim to be members of the Pir Baghdadi Khidmat Committee who were a party to the proceedings before Respondent No.2 and were s