V.M. Velumani, J.

Both the CRPs are filed challenging the common order, dated 09.10.2015 passed by Wakf Tribunal, Trichirappalli in W.O.P. Nos. 2 & 4 of 2012. The issue involved in both the CRPs are interlinked and filed against the common order and hence, both CRPs are disposed of by common order.

2. Facts of the case :-

The respondents 1 & 2 are Pangalies of first petitioner Dargah viz., sharers of residue income of Dargah. The Dargah is administred by Trustees as per the Scheme decree, dated 29.01.1930 made in O.S. No. 91 of 1925 by the learned Sub Judge, Trichirapalli. As per the Scheme Decree, the Dargah is administrated by five Trustees. One is hereditary Trustee selected for life. One is Pangali Trustee elected for three years from and among Pangalies eligible to vote. A separate voters list of Pangalies is prepared and maintained. Rules for conducting the Election was framed in the year 1952. As per the rules, when one Pangali dies, his legal heirs can make an applications to the Trustees to be recognised as one of the Pangalies. After verification of supporting documents and being satisfied with the claim, a person can be included as Pangalies. The Board of Trustees has to conduct Election of Pangali trustee. The board can authorise any one of the Trustees to conduct Election as Election officer. The other three Trustees are called Public Trustees and are to be selected by the Wakf board from and among members of Muslim community of Trichirappalli. All the five trustess must elect one among them as executive trustee for one year, who will manage day to day affairs of the Darga.

3. Public Trustees were lastly appointed in the year 2010. No Pangali Trustee was elected and no Executive Trustee was elected. While so, the second petitioner claiming to be Executive Trustee and Election Officer issued a Election Notification, dated 13.02.2012 for Election of Pangali trustee. The respondents 1 & 2 filed W.O.P. No. 2/12 challenging the said notification on the following grounds.

(i) Second petitioner is not an executive trustee and he was not appointed as Election officer by board of Trustees.

(ii) The voters list of pangalies were not updated. Father of the first respondent who was a Pangali died on 12.12.2011. The first respondent gave an application on 09.01.2012 to include him as Pangali. The petitioners failed to consider the application and failed to include him as Pangali.

(iii) Many dead persons were shown as Pangalies and many eligible persons were not included in the voters list.

(iv) Second petitioner removed the fourth respondent in WOP No. 2/2012 from the Trusteeship. One trustee has no power to remove another trustee.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 have also filed I.A. No. 85/2012 for temporary injunction pending WOP No. 2/12. The learned Judge granted an interim injunction restraining the second petitioner from conducting Election for Pangali trustee. The respondents 1 and 2 filed WOP No. 4/2012 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to conduct Election of Pangali Trustee on the ground that Second petitioner is trying to conduct Election without following the rules of Election framed in the year 1952. Second petitioner is falsely claiming to be an Executive Trustee and Election Officer and there is a dispute among the existing Trustees.

5. First and second petitioners filed counter statement in WOP.No. 2/12 and opposed the same. According to the petitioners 1 & 2, as per the Scheme Decree five Trustees are to manage the affairs of Dargah and one among them has to be elected as Executive Trustee. Once a trustee or executive trustee was elected, he will continue to be in the said capacity till another person is elected to that post. Second petitioner was elected as Executive Trustee. As no other person was appointed as public trustee and elected as Executive Trustee, the second petitioner continued to be Executive Trustee. As per the instructions of seventh respondent Wakf Board, second petitioner has started Election