A. Hariprasad, J.

1. Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short, “Act”).

2. Revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal (in short, “Tribunal”) in an original application filed under Sections 83(2) and 83(5) of the Act. Relevant facts are as follows:

Respondents 2 and 3 are the muthawallies in management of wakf property admeasuring 20.76 cents in Kasaba Village, Kozhikode Taluk. The muthawallies filed a petition before the 1st respondent Wakf Board (in short, “Board”) seeking permission to sell the above mentioned property. After complying with all formalities, the Board accorded sanction for the sale of property on 30.05.2011. Factum of the auction sale was duly published in various dailies. The auction was fixed on 18.07.2011. Minimum price per cent was fixed at Rs.9,00,000/-. Petitioner also participated in the public auction and he became the successful bidder. He quoted the highest price at Rs.9,60,000/- per cent. The Board accepted the bid and approved the auction in favour of the petitioner. He deposited one third of the total amount before the Board. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited balance amount before the Board, for which the Board had issued a receipt. When the petitioner approached the Board for preparation of the sale deed, the Board informed him that the auction would be confirmed soon. But, the petitioner thereafter received a notice for re-auction. No reason was stated in the order for cancelling the auction. The order for re-auction, cancelling the earlier auction, is illegal and in violation of the Act and the Rules. Hence the order passed by the Board was challenged before the Tribunal.

3. Board resisted the action by contending that as per Section 32 of the Act, general superintendence of the wakfs in the State is vested with the Board. Wakf by name 'Moothammantakath Suharabi Wakf' has been registered with the Board and the muthawalli had submitted an application seeking permission of the Board for sale of a portion of the property for constructing a commercial building in the remaining portion by utilising the sale proceeds. An officer deputed by the Board, after conducting a survey, reported that the property would fetch at least Rs.9,00,000/-per cent over and above the value fixed by the Government. Board, after considering the need alleged for the sale and the report of the officer, decided to sanction the sale as requested by the muthawalli. Public auction was conducted on 18.07.2011. On the same day muthawalli submitted an application stating that though the market value of the property at the time of submitting the application was Rs.8,00,000/- per cent, it had gone up to Rs.20,00,000/-per cent and the property could have been auctioned at least for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-per cent. Thereafter, on 05.08.2011 another application was filed by the muthawalli mentioning that though they expected more price, they would accept the auction and request the Board to proceed with the matter. In this scenario, the Board considered the matter on 14.09.2011 and decided to re-auction the property after publishing in leading Malayalam Dailies. It was also decided that the persons, who had participated in the earlier auction could withdraw the amount deposited, if they were not willing to participate in the re-auction. This fact was communicated to the petitioner. He submitted an application for permitting him to participate in the re-auction without prejudice to the appeal filed by him before the Tribunal. On subsequent enquiry, it was revealed to the Board that the market value of the property could be approximately Rs.22,00,000/- per cent. Hence the matter was placed before the Board for further consideration. Board would contend that the entire steps for re-auction were taken for the benefit of the wakf.

4. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a common counter statement contending that the application is not maintainable. Petitioner cann