THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4153 of 2008 Dated. 08–07-2010 Between: Mohd. Rahmatullah …Petitioner Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Opp: Public Garden, Nampally, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4153 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: Though this revision under Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (Act No. 43 of 1995) (for short ‘the Act’) is presented challenging the order dated 30-07-2008 of the learned A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No. 3 of 2004, contending that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the order of the Wakf Board dated 03-01- 2004 (issued by its Chief Executive Officer, appointing the 2nd respondent as joint Muthawalli along with the petitioner), is valid and was issued after due and proper opportunity, it is seen that the petitioner filed O.A.No. 3 of 2004 assailing the order of the Wakf Board, dated 03-01-2004 without impleading the A.P. State Wakf Board but impleading only the Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board as the party respondent. The Wakf Board, referred to in the Act as the Board of Wakf, is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal; and shall by the said name sue and be sued (vide Section 13 of the Act). The Wakf Board is thus a persona juris, statutorily consecrated and enjoined the status of a juristic person. Section 63 of the Act empowers the Board to appoint a Mutawalli. The power to appoint a Mutawalli is thus a power of the Wakf Board, under the provisions of the Act. The Board being a juristic person performs its statutorily ordained functions through human agencies and instrumentalities and for that purpose is a Chief Executive Officer appointed. The Chief Executive Officer however is not the Wakf Board. Since the petitioner presents a grievance regarding the validity of an order appointing the 2nd respondent as joint Mutawalli along with him, of a wakf institution namely, Jamia Mosque and its appurtenant property in Ongole town, Prakasam District, the A.P. State Wakf Board ought to have been impleaded while seeking relief pertaining to an order passed by and on behalf of the Wakf Board, under Section 63 of the Act. As the petitioner failed to implead the A.P. State Wakf Board, which is a necessary and property party, this is fatal and fundamental infirmity in the institution of O.A.No. 3 of 2004 and should have been noticed and rectified by the petitioner as the dominus litus, by the Chief Executive Officer while defending the application or at least by the Tribunal. The fact however is that none of the parties noticed the infirmity. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was disabled from taking steps to implead the A.P. State Wakf Board because neither the respondents nor the Tribunal pointed this infirmity. This is a contention that is misconceived. It is the duty of the petitioner who has approached the Tribunal seeking relief to strategize the substantive and of procedural aspects of litigation and not of the respondents to assist him in prosecuting his case. No doubt, the Tribunal ought to have considered this fatal infirmity and to have declined exercise of jurisdiction, but that did not happen. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as valuable rights of the petitioner are involved, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to pursue adjudication afresh before the Tribunal. The petitioner must bear the consequences due to his diligence or lack of it. A s O.A.No. 3 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 83 (2) of the Act challenging the order dated 03-01-2004 of the Wakf Board in exercise of its powers under Section 63 of the Act, without impleading the A.P. State Wakf Board, the application -- O.A.No. 3 of 2004 – was not maintainable and the Tribunal could not and ought not to have adjudicated the grievance of the petitioner in the circumstances. For this reason, the order dated 30-07-2008 is a nullity and is so declared. Whether the petitioner is entitled to prefer another application for the same relief as in O.A.No. 3 of 2004 is not an aspect on which this Court is called upon to pronounce, in the matrix of this lis. As and when application is filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may consider the same in accordance with law. This revision petition is disposed of as above, but in the circumstances, without costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 08-07-2010 Pvks/*