Point of Law :
A bare reading of Section 83 of the Act, 1995 would make it clear that jurisdiction vested in the Wakf Tribunal is very wide and encompasses all aspects concerning Wakf matters. It empowers the Wakf Tribunal to adjudicate on all disputes flowing out of the provisions of the Act, 1995. It vests all powers exercisable by Civil Court. It is headed by judicial officer of the rank of District Judge. This Section provides enough safeguards for the aggrieved person to seek redress of his grievance. Section 83 of the Act, 1995 also provides remedy before this Court against the decisions made by the Wakf Tribunal.

P. NAVEEN RAO, J.

1. In these two writ petitions, the issue concerns appointment of Managing Committee to Masjid-e-Ek-Khana Jame Masjid Mohammedi/Jam-E-Jasjid Mohammedi (hereinafter referred to Wakf Institution). Therefore the above two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. In W.P.No.29536 of 2018, petitioners challenge the order of the Chief Executive Officer of Wakf Board dated 16.08.2018 appointing new Managing Committee to the Wakf Institution, which committee is arrayed as 3rd respondent.

3. In W.P.No.33869 of 2018, petitioners pray to issue declaration not extending the term of the petitioner No.1 Managing Committee on expiry of term even though representation was made on 05.01.2018 and report of Inspector Auditor dated 27.02.2018 was in their favour, as illegal and seeks direction to extend the term of petitioner no.1 Managing Committee.

4. Briefly noted the facts relevant for the decision are as under:

On 09.02.2016, the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Wakf Board, issued orders appointing Eleven Member Committee including the 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.29536 of 2018 as General Secretary. The term of this committee was for two years. The term of the said committee expired in February, 2018 and is not extended further. According to the petitioners, on 05.01.2018, the existing Managing Committee represented for extension of their term for further period. It appears, the Inspector Auditor recommended for extension of the earlier Managing Committee. According to the petitioners, the Member of Parliament representing Hyderabad addressed a letter dated 03.02.2018 to the Chief Executive Officer suggesting appointment of a new Managing Committee with Sri Syed Ismail Mohd. Shah as its President. Based on the said letter, Sri Syed Ismail Mohd. Shah made a representation to the Wakf Board on 10.04.2018 to appoint new Managing Committee, headed by the said person. Ignoring the request of previous managing committee for renewal and under pressure from local Member of Parliament, the Chief Executive Officer passed orders on 16.08.2018 appointing new Managing Committee. This order of appointment of new Managing Committee is under challenge in W.P.No.29536 of 2018.

5. The appointment of new managing committee and not renewing the term of earlier managing committee for further period is primarily challenged on the following grounds.

5.1. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, as existing managing committee resolved to renew its term, and requested the Wakf Board to renew, it is incumbent on the Wakf Board to renew the term and without considering their request, no new committee could have been appointed. He further contended that the appointment of new managing committee is made under the influence of Member of Parliament. The information obtained under the Right to Information Act clearly disclose that the letter addressed by the Member of Parliament; consequential representation by Syed Ismail Mohd.Shah and consequential decision by the Wakf Board are in sequence and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

5.2. It is further case of the petitioners that earlier when the Managing committee was appointed by the orders dated 09.02.2016, Syed Ismail Mohd. Shah filed W.P.No.12059 of 2016 challenging the said appointment. The claim of petitioner therein was opposed by the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board has taken clear stand that petitioner therein has no manner of right to claim himself to be appointed as President. Wakf Board averred that neither he has the President nor Muthawalli of the Masjid and is not even Mussalli of the Mosque as he is not a local resident of the area, where the Mosque is situated. Having taken such stand against claim of Syed Ismail Mohd. Shah, Wakf Board could not have appointed him as President of the Managing Committee and the said action smacks of arbitrariness on the face of it and clearly manifest that appointment is not bona fide, and is because