Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked on the premise that petitioners are unable to seek redressal of grievances from the Wakf Tribunal constituted under section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, in view of the amendment to that section as per the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013. They plead disability to institute proceedings in the absence of a Tribunal with the composition in terms of the amended provisions. They are also precluded from suing in the civil courts owing to the bar of jurisdiction as per section 85 of the Act, it is contended.

2. In view of the importance of the issue in the realm of judicial administration and deliverance of justice, notice was issued to the Advocate General. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned standing counsel for the Wakf Board.

3. Section 85 of the principal Act provided that no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any Civil Court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any Wakf or Wakf property or other matter which is required by or under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal. By the effect of sections 4 and 45 of the amending Act, such bar to jurisdiction was extended to preclude revenue courts and other authorities as well.

4. As per Section 44 of the amending Act, sub-sections 1 and 4 of section 83 of the principal Act have been substituted, also resulting in the introduction of sub-section 4A. Thereby, apart from enlarging the subject matter jurisdiction of the Tribunal, its composition has been enlarged from that of a single-member tribunal to a three-member one; one member to be from the State Judicial Service, who shall be the Chairman; another from the State Civil Services and another from persons having knowledge of Muslim law and jurisprudence. The three sources are more particularly described in the Act as amended.

5. As per sub-section 4A introduced through the aforenoted substitution as per the amending Act, the terms and conditions of appointment, including the salaries and allowances payable to the Chairman and other members other than persons appointed as ex officio members, shall be such as may be prescribed. Since Section 83 does not fall within Chapter III of the Act, such prescription can be only by Rules made by the State Government, in view of section 3(l) read with section 109 (1) & (2)(xxv) of the Act. It is the trite requirement of law that any rule so made shall be published in the Official Gazette. Section 111 prescribes that every rule made under section 109, among other things, shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before the State Legislature. Making of such rules following due procedure is, therefore, sine qua non for the Tribunal to act in terms of the amendments brought in as per the amending Act as regards its composition. This is so, though the rule of laying noted here does not prescribe the prior approval of the State Legislature for the rules being effectuated.

6. Going by the constitution of the Tribunal in terms of sub-section 1 of section 83, its objects, functions and the basket of jurisdiction, Tribunal ought to be a full-time one. The concept of ex officio members in sub-section 4A of section 83 could never be understood to mean the discharge of the functions of any member of the Tribunal as part-time functions, in addition to the other regular official duties of any person appointed as a member of the Tribunal. When jurisdictional civil courts are precluded and citizens with grievances are required to seek remedies from tribunals, such tribunals are required to extend qualitative and quantitative output of justice deliverance as would be comparable with what has been deprived from the litigants by such tribunalisation as part of the justice delivery system. This view is inexcusable in the context of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of sub-section 1 of section 83 of the Act and