HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4386 OF 2011 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 12.7.2011 passed in I.A.No. 411 of 2010 in O.A.No. 10 of 2010 by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad. Petitioner herein is the second respondent in O.A No. 10 of 2010. O.A was filed under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995, seeking to set aside the orders passed by the Wakf Board-second respondent herein. First respondent herein filed an application viz., I.A.No. 411 of 2010 under Section 83(2) & (5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 r/w Section 151 CPC, seeking interim suspension of the proceedings of the Wakf Board-second respondent herein, under which the Mutawalli ship of Naziruddin Ahmed- petitioner herein was regularized to the Wakf Institution known as Sir Nizamath Jung Wakf along with its attached properties in Hyderabad. The Tribunal allowed the I.A holding that continuation of second respondent viz., petitioner herein, in the said post appears to be detrimental to the subject Wakf Institutions. It further held that in the interest of the said Wakf till the main petition is disposed of, let the Wakf Board the authority under the statue and its Towliath Committee to manage the affairs of the subject Wakf. Aggrieved by the same, second respondent in I.A filed the present Civil Revision petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction. He also contended that the learned Judge ought not to have passed interim suspension pending disposal of O.A. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the petitioner herein had indulged in leasing out part of the Wakf property against the conditions of the Wakf Deed to a private person to construct a building. He also submits that the order of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Mutawalli and the regularization order are on the face of it illegal, being not in conformity to the conditions laid down in Section 63 of the Wakf Act, which mandates fixing a period for the Mutawalliship and imposing conditions. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly directed that the Towliath Committee to manage the affairs of the subject Wakf till the main petition is disposed of and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As per the primary condition laid down in the Wakf Deed, the elder member of the family of the Wakf shall be considered to the post of the Mutawalli. Hence, the grand father of the second respondent was first appointed, and after his demise, his father was appointed, but when it came to consider the appointment of the second respondent, or his brother, the said condition was not adhered to, instead a person not connected to the wakf family, the petitioner herein was appointed. Further, the petitioner herein had indulged in leasing out part of the Wakf property against the conditions of the Wakf Deed to a private person to construct building, about which, the first respondent-Wakf Board itself has given a complaint to the police and for that the petitioner was kept under suspension and after that he was removed from the post of Mutawalli. The relevant proceedings of the Wakf Board Ex. P-11 dated 4.4.2007 reads as under: “the matter therefore placed before the Special Officer who in turn vide reference 4th read above passed orders to remove the mutawalli. In view of the above, the mutawalli is hereby removed under Section 64(1) of the Wakf Act, which empowers the Wakf Board to remove the mutawalli from his office.” Be that as it may, under Section 63 of the Wakf Act, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Mutawallli and the regularization order are on the face of it illegal. Under Section 64(8) of the Wakf Act, Mutawalli of a Wakf removed from his office shall not be eligible for re-appointment as a mutawalli for a period of five years. The relevant portion reads as under: “Section 64(8) : A mutawalli of a Wakf removed from his office under this Section shall not eligible for re-appointment as a mutawalli of that Wakf for a period of five years from the date of such removal.” In view of the above, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly observed that the continuation of the petitioner in the said post appears to be detrimental to the subject Wakf Institutions and therefore, in the interest of the said Wakf till the main petition is disposed of, let the Wakf Board the authority under the statue and its Towliath Committee to manage the affairs of the subject Wakf. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 18.11.2011 KA