1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order by which the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board removed the petitioner from the post of Mutawalli under Section 64 of The Wakf Act, 1995.

2. I have heard Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Wakf Board.

3. At the time when the revision petition came up for admission, I had a doubt about the maintainability of the revision petition, without first exhausting the remedy before the Wakf Tribunal and hence I directed the learned counsel on record for the petitioner to serve notice on the Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board. Thereafter, I heard the counsel on both sides only on the question as to whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Wakf Tribunal, against the order of the Wakf Board impugned in the revision petition. Therefore the present order is confined only to this legal issue and I have not addressed myself to the merits of the controversy.

4. The doubt as to whether the petitioner could approach the Wakf Tribunal against the order impugned in the revision, has arisen on account of the fact that Section 64 (1) empowers the Board to remove a Mutawalli for various reasons enlisted in clauses (a) to (k). Section 64 (4) provides a remedy of appeal against the order of removal passed under Section 64 (1), only if such removal was for reasons contained in clauses (c) to (j) of sub section (1) of Section 64. In other words, the remedy of appeal available under sub section (4) of Section 64 is not available to a person who is removed for reasons contained in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (k) of sub section (1). In the case on hand, the petitioner was removed on the allegation of misappropriation and fraud, covered by clause (k) of Section 64 (1). Therefore the petitioner cannot avail the remedy of appeal under sub section (4). The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board are in agreement on this aspect namely that the petitioner cannot invoke Section 64 (4) to file an appeal to the Tribunal, as he was removed in terms of Section 64 (1)(k).

5. But Section 83 (2) of the Act, provides for a remedy of making an application to the Wakf Tribunal, to any Mutawalli or any person interested in a Wakf or any other person aggrieved by an order made under the Act or the Rules. It is not clear whether a person who is debarred from filing an appeal under Section 64 (4), could indirectly go before the Tribunal by taking recourse to Section 83 (2). This lack of clarity has led to the present discussion.

6. The Wakf Act, 1995, was enacted after a lot of deficiencies in the working of the Wakf Act, 1954 was brought to the fore and the attempt made to set them right by the Amendment Act, 1984 failed on account of strong opposition. The present Act creates four power centres viz., (i) the Chief Executive Officer, (ii) the Wakf Board, (iii) the Wakf Tribunal and (iv) the Government and clearly demarcates the area of operation of these power centres. Some of the powers conferred are administrative in nature and some are quasi judicial or judicial in nature. As a consequence, some of the powers are exerciseable in original and some are appellate or revisional. They can be presented in a tabular form as follows:-

7. Apart from conferring original, appellate and revisional powers upon the Chief Executive Officer, the Board, the Tribunal and the State Government, the Wakf Act, 1995, (i) imposes certain bars in relation to jurisdiction of Civil Courts and (ii) also prescribes certain preconditions for the exercise of jurisdiction by Civil Courts. They are as follows:-

TABLE

.(i) Section 85 bars any suit or other legal proceedings being laid in any Civil Court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any Wakf, Wakf property or other matter, which is required by or under this Act to