ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal at Chennai in A.A. No. 18 of 2019, by order dated 04.09.2019.

2. In respect of the notified waqf, namely Muslimpur Thottipattari Masjith and Farookhiya Matharasa Waqf, there had been an elected committee from the year 2013 to 2016 and once the term of the elected committee was over in the year 2016, the committee was given further extension of time for one year, which also was over by 2017, thereafter election ought to have been conducted to elect the new Administrative Committee of the notified work i.e. subject waqf, however for various reasons, the election could not be held immediately.

3. In the meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, who is the first respondent herein, had appointed an Ad-hoc Committee by order dated 06.03.2019, whereby nine members Ad-hoc Committee was constituted which has taken in charge of the Waqf concerned.

4. In that juncture, the present revision petitioner who was the erstwhile Muthavalli, whose tenure was extended till 2017, had approached the Tribunal assailing the said order appointing an Ad-hoc Committee for a period of three years to maintain the Waqf. The said appointment of Ad-hoc Committee was taken note of and accordingly, the Tribunal decided the issue in A.A. No. 18 of 2019 through the impugned order, rejecting the said appeal filed by the revision petitioner, as against which, the present revision petition has been filed.

5. Heard Mr. B. Ram Prasath, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner who would submit that, though the elected term of three years was over by 2016 and extended time of one year was over by 2017, it is the claim of the revision petitioner that, he continued even beyond 2017, of course with the permission of the Superintendent of the Waqf Board.

6. When that being the position, all of a sudden, the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board cannot plunge into action by constituting an Ad-hoc Committee consisting of nine members, without including the name of the revision petitioner. Therefore, the constitution of Ad-hoc Committee is a wrong solution, hence, the revision petitioner, assailing the same, has preferred this revision petition.

7. The learned counsel would further submit that, the Waqf Tribunal without going into merits of the issue by taking into account that, when the revision petitioner had been in the helm of affairs, as erstwhile Muthavalli, he had not at all been included in the present Ad-hoc Committee, which is impugned, has rejected the said appeal filed by the revision petitioner by stating that, the Ad-hoc Committee was appointed by the Board for three years, therefore the same need not be interfered with, accordingly, the Tribunal did not find any jurisdictional error or illegality in the appointment of Ad-hoc Committee and by stating the same, the appeal was dismissed, of course erroneously, therefore assailing the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

8. However, Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned Standing counsel appearing for the first and second respondents/Tamil Nadu Waqf Board has made submissions stating that, as of now, the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board has been superseded, in whose place, the Special Officer has been appointed by the State Government invoking Section 99 of The Waqf Act, 1995. The Special Officer has also taken charge of the Waqf Board and he has been acting upon.

9. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board would further submit that, the Special Officer has got power to conduct election and also is empowered to exercise the power of the Waqf Board under the Act. In this regard, if at all any election has to be conducted for the present directing to replace the present Ad-hoc Committee by an elected body, certainly that exercise also would be undertaken by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board through the Special Officer, in due course.

10. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board