THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28001 of 2009 ORDER: The first respondent filed O.S.No.155 of 2001 before the A.P. Wakf Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) against respondents 2 to 5 for the relief of eviction of the latter and recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner filed I.A.No.400 of 2008 before the Tribunal with a prayer to implead him as defendant. It is stated that the A.P. Wakf Board, the sixth respondent herein, is a proper and necessary party to the suit. This writ petition is filed complaining that the Tribunal did not dispose of the I.A., though more than one year has elapsed. When the writ petition was listed for admission on 22.12.2009, this Court called for information as to why the I.A. was kept pending. In its letter, dated 23.12.2009, the learned Presiding Officer stated that the I.A. could not be disposed of on account of non-availability of the Stenographer and that it has since been disposed of on 23.12.2009. Sri Asadullah Shareef, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal committed illegality in not disposing of the application for the past fourteen months and that the inaction on the part of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. He has also argued the matter on merits stating, inter alia, that the suit ought not to have been numbered by the Tribunal on the ground that the sixth respondent is not made as a party. The petitioner, no doubt, had a grievance as to non-disposal of the I.A. The same was promptly attended to by this Court and it ultimately emerged that the I.A. was disposed of on 23.12.2009. With this, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. However, extensive submissions were made on merits and, in fact, outside the scope of the writ petition. Substantial time was spent on that, in spite of the observation of this Court that the petitioner cannot have any genuine grievance once the I.A. was disposed of. In case the petitioner is not satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal, he has to work out his remedies in accordance with law. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.01.2010 kdl