IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27378 of 2008 Between: Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan, S/o. late Nawab Aziz Nawaz Jung, R/o. H.No. 5-10-196, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chairperson, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 3 Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 4 Syed Iftekhar Ali Khan, S/o. Late Syed Khader Ali Khan, R/o. 11-3-933/1, Mallepally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any Writ, Order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records in O.A.No. 20 of 2003 on the file of the 1st respondent dated 29/6/2007, which confirmed the order of the Respondent No.3 in Proceedings No. 15/H3/J1/1/92 dt. 10/1/2003 as well as 8/7/2003 and to quash the said orders as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of teh Constitution of India; and consequently suspend the operation of the said orders by appointing the petitioner as Muttawalli; and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: MR.ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27378 of 2008 ORDER: The order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal in O.A.No.20 of 2003, dated 29.06.2007, is assailed in this writ petition. As per Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Act, for brevity), against an order passed by the learned Tribunal, a revision would lie to High Court. In Mohd.Abdul Kareem v Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board[1] this Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not lie when a revision is provided under Section 83(9) of the Act. Having regard to this, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition and prefer a revision under Section 83(9) of the Act. Giving liberty to do so, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17.12.2008 vs To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} [1] 2004 (3) ALT 254 = 2004 (2) ALD 345