Syed Abdul Salam and Others vs The Chief Executive Officers, Karnataka Board of Wakfs and Others

Bhakthavatsala, J.—This Revision Petition is directed against order dated 6.11.2003 made in Application No. 3/2003 on the file of Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Bangalore Division, Bangalore (in short, the ''K W T'') dismissing the application seeking cancellation, of the election held to the Managing Committee of Shah Inayath & Jamia Mosque, Gouribidanur Taluk, on 5.1.2003.

The Respondent No. 1 is represented by Sri D L N Rao, learned Counsel. Respondent No. 2 has been deleted. Respondent Nos. 3 ro 23 are represented by Sri Prabhuling K Navadagi.

Heard arguments of the learned counsels for the parties on the point of maintainability of the Revision Petition.

Sri Tanveer Pasha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that though the Revision Petition has been filed u/s 115 of the CPC read with Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short, ''the Act''), it may be treated as Revision Petition filed u/s 83(9) of the Act.

The Point for consideration is:

Whether revision is maintainable as against final order of the K W T?

The applicants filed an application u/s 83(2) of the Act before the K W T challenging the election held to the Managing Committee of Sahh Inayayth & Jamia Mosque, Gauribindanur on 5.1.2003 and sought for re-election before the Tribunal. The application was rejected by the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the impugned order. The K W T has held that the application was not maintainable for the reliefs of cancellation of election and holding re-election.

For the purpose of answering the point viz., as to the maintainability of the Revision Petition, it is useful to refer to sub-Sees. (7) and (9) of Section 83 of the Act, which read as under:-

"83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc.-

(1) ... ... ... ... ... ... (2) ... ... ... ... ... ... (3) ... ... ... ... ... ... (4) ... ... ... ... ... ... (5) ... ... ... ... ... ... (6) ... ... ... ... ... ... (7) The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding upon the parties to the application and it shall have the force of a decree made by a civil court.

(8) ... ... ... ... ... ... (9) No appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal.

Provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the application of the Board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may think fit.

Keeping in view the language used in sub-Section 7 of Section 83 of the Act that the decision of the KWT shall final and binding and sub-Section (9) of Section 83 of the Act says that no Appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise given or made by the K W T, the Petitioners instead of filing a Writ Petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court as provided in the proviso to sub-Section 9 of the Section 83 of the Act, have filed the Revision Petition. The Larger Bench decision of the Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. and Others, , Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. and Others, examined the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court with reference to Section 115 of the CPC and other enactments viz., Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in relation to Motor Accidents Claims and Karnataka Education Act in relation to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, has held that the Tribunals are not subordinate to High Court for the purpose of Section 115 of C P C and the Tribunals are excluded from exercising jurisdiction over ordinary Civil Court by separate enactments. The orders passed by them are not amenable to the jurisdiction u/s 115 of C P C. The above finding of the Larger Bench of this Court in relation to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the Educational Appellate Tribunal and the Railway Claims Tribunal is squarely applicable to the K W T established under the Act. The proviso to sub-Section (9) of Section 83 of the Act cannot be constructed as conferring re visional power on the High Court. In other words, it reiterates the jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226/ 227 of the constitution of India. Hence, I answer the point raised by me in the negative.

For the reasons said supra, I pass the following order:-

The Revision Petition is rejected as not maintainable, with liberty to the Petitioners to file a Writ Petition. No. costs.