D. K. SETH, J. Sari Musahid All had filed this kppiication for substitution in place and $tead of deceased Maqsood Ali, the petitioner in the present writ petition. Shri Maqsood Ali participated in the writ petition in the capacity of Mutwalli in the Waqf creatjed by Sher Ali and Moti Begum, Moradabad, It is alleged by the applicant that he is the son of deceased petitioner and therefore he should be substituted. It ia not claimed that he has been appointed as Mutwalli in respect of the Waqf and that he was seeking his subs titution as Mutwalli of the Waqf property. However, by an ap plication dated 25-7-1997 filed on behalf of Sadat Ali, respondent No. 4, it is alleged that Shri Musanid Ali had already been appointed as Mutwalli on 29-1-1997. 2. Be that as it may, the application of Musahid for substitution is being allowed subject to objection that might be taken up by respondents. This substitution shall be treated only for the sake of deciding this writ petition and shall not be taken into account for the purpose of any decision by the Board if occasion so arises and the question relating to the rights of the respective parties would remain open for decision by the Board in accordance with law if it is so required to be decided, without being influenced by the substitu tion allowed in the present writ petition. 3. The name of Shri Maqsood Ali be deleted and that of Shri Musahid Ali be substituted. The office will take ap propriate steps in course of one week for amending the cause title of the writ peti tion. 4. After the above application for substitution is allowed Shri V. M. Zaidi, learned Counsel representing the sub stituted heir and Shri A. N. Bhargava, learned Counsel representing respondent No. 4 had agreed that the matter may be taken up for disposal and had accordingly addressed the court on merit of the case. 5. I have heard Shri V. M. Zaidi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A. N. Bhargava learned Counsel for contesting respondent at length. 6. In the present case, order dated 12-3-1993 passed by Controller U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow, being Annexure-8 to the writ petition has been challenged on the ground that the same is contrary to the. directions contained in the Waqf Deed. 6. In the present case, order dated 12-3-1993 passed by Controller U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow, being Annexure-8 to the writ petition has been challenged on the ground that the same is contrary to the. directions contained in the Waqf Deed. Inasmuch as according to the directions the Waqfs Board can appoint only one Mutawalli for the Waqf whereas the order hadsought to appoint a commit tee of management. The other ground of challenge is that Shri Maqsood Ali being the only relative of the Waqifs, it is he who could alone be appointed and said Shri Sadat Ali can have no claim for being so appointed. The third point of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Shri Maqsood Ali was a Mutawalli appointed and he had never been removed from the post under Section 55 of the Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, hereinafter called as the 1960 Act, and as such there cannot be any appointment of anyone else as Mutawalli including the committee of management. 7. While elaborating his argument Shri Zaidi, contends that on earlier oc casion when the petitioner was removed and five member committee was ap pointed, the petitioner had challenged the said order on a reference which was dis missed. A revision against the said order was preferred. In the revision an interim was so granted to the extent that Shri Maq sood Ali may be included in the manage ment of Waqf. Pursuant thereto Shri Maq sood Ali was appointed as sole Mutawalli. By reason of such appointment he got his revision application dismissed as not pressed on 8-2-1989 (Annexure-8 ). He claims that by reason of his fresh appoint ment, it is no more open for the Board to appoint five member committee as has been sought to be done. One such appoint ment was questioned in Writ Petition No. 8791 of 1990. The said order was passed on 27-2-1990. While disposing of the writ petition by an order dated 7-9-1992, this court had passed the following order: "i therefore, set aside the order of the Controller dated 27-2- 1990 and remand the matter to him to pass a fresh decision on merits after considering the aspect of the matter and the interest of the Waqf. While disposing of the writ petition by an order dated 7-9-1992, this court had passed the following order: "i therefore, set aside the order of the Controller dated 27-2- 1990 and remand the matter to him to pass a fresh decision on merits after considering the aspect of the matter and the interest of the Waqf. It may be mentioned that the Board can appoint a Mutwalli under Section 19 (2) (o) of the Waqfs Act but under the proviso to the said section, the Board has to be guided as far as possible by the directions of the Waqifs. It is also inherent that the interest of the Mutwalli. The fact that the petitioner has been working as Mutwalli for a long is also a relevant consideration but it is not the sole consideration. If the Board finds that the petitioner has been working against the interest of the Waqf, then the petitioner can certainly be removed. The interest of the Waqf and direction of the Waqifs are paramount consideration in such matters. Hence the Board will issue notice to both the parties and consider the entire matter in detail and pass a fresh order appointing a Mutwalli according to law. Until such order is passed the petitioner will continue since he has been work ing for long. The petitioner will also render ac counts of the Board. " 8. Pursuant to the said order, the present impugned order has been passed ignoring the direction contained in the said order dated 7-9-1992. According to Mr. Zaidi, since the petitioner has never been removed under Section 55 of the 1960 Act, the order dated 12-3-1993 is void ab initio. He further contends that because of the appointment of Shri Musahid Ali by a subsequent order and the said order having not been challenged by Sadat Ali, it is no more open to this Court to decide the question contrary to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Shri A. H. Bhargava, learned Counsel for respondent, on the other hand contends that appointment of Shri Maq sood Ali being in terms of the interim order passed in revision, the said order was subject to the result of the revision. 9. Shri A. H. Bhargava, learned Counsel for respondent, on the other hand contends that appointment of Shri Maq sood Ali being in terms of the interim order passed in revision, the said order was subject to the result of the revision. The revision having been dismissed as not pressed, the interim order has merged in the said order and, therefore, the appoint ment made pursuant to the interim order could not survive and has no legal sanc tion. Then again by reason of the order dated 27-2-1990 the said order stands con firmed requiring a fresh decision on the question and the appointment made pur suant to the interim order was granted in the revision was no more allowed to be continued and was not confirmed even in the order dated 7-9-92 passed in Writ Peti tion No. 8791 of 1990 wherein the order dated 27-2-1990 was challenged. On the other hand in the said order, the matter was directed to be decided afresh in ac cordance with law irrespective of the ap pointment of Shri Maqsood Ali in terms of the interim order passed in revision. He points out from the order dated 7-9-92 that no where it has been directed in the said order that the appointment of Shri Maq sood Ali pursuant to the interim order granted in the revision should be adhered to. Since the appointment of the petitioner had merged with the dismissal of the revision application and fresh appoint ment is being made and the appointment of the petitioner having not been con tinued there is no scope of removal of the petitioner under Section 55 of the said Act and it has no manner of application in the present case. 10. I have heard both the learned Counsel at length as observed earlier. 11. In order to decide the question It is necessary to refer the background in brief. On 7-3-1929 one Shri Sher Ali and his wife Smt. Moti Begum created a waqf through a registered deed which was registered with the Waqf Board with registration No. 573 Moradabad. The said deed contain a condition that Waqif Sher Ali during his life-time would remain ap pointed as Mutawalli to be succeeded by his wife as Mutawalli upon his death. On the death of his wife their descendants would be appointed as Mutawalli till the extinction of the branch. The said deed contain a condition that Waqif Sher Ali during his life-time would remain ap pointed as Mutawalli to be succeeded by his wife as Mutawalli upon his death. On the death of his wife their descendants would be appointed as Mutawalli till the extinction of the branch. In the absence of any lineal descendants, the Mutawalli was to "be appointed from amongst the mem bers of the family of the Waqifs. If there was no one in the family, a person belonging to the tribe (biradri) having the prescribed qualification was to be appointed as the Mutawalli by a five member committee. Admittedly, there is no lineal descendants male or female of the Waqifs. In the year 1964, the Board appointed a seven mem ber committee for the management of the Waqf. This committee was superseded by the Board on 21-2-1968 and appointed five member committee, with Shri Maqsood Ali as its Secretary. This committee was dissolved on 25-7-1978 on account of death of the President of the Committee and resignation of two of the members. A new five member committee was ap pointed by the Board. A reference was made by; Shri Maqsood Ali aggrieved by the said order which was stayed by the Waqf Tribunal. The reference was dis missed on 2-5-1986. A revision No. 491 of 1986 before this Court was filed by the aggrieved Maqsood Ali. By an order dated 22- 7-1986 an order of stay was granted in the said proceeding to the extent that if the committee appointed by the Board is not taken over possession, i ts functioning shall remain stayed. However, the Board was given the option that while making arran gement for the management of the Waqf Shri Maqsood Ali be included in the management. In compliance with the said order, by an order dated 29-9- 1988 Shri Maqsood Ali was appointed as sole Mutawalli which appointment was con tinued by subsequent Order. Ultimately the said revision was not pressed and ac cordingly it was so dismissed by an order dated 8-2-1989. On the other hand one Shri Sadat Ali being aggrieved by the order dated 29-9- 1988 appointing Shri Maqsood Ali as Mutawalli had moved an application for recalling the order. Pursuant to which notices were issued to the parties and after hearing them, the order dated 29-9-1988 was recalled on 27-2-1990. On the other hand one Shri Sadat Ali being aggrieved by the order dated 29-9- 1988 appointing Shri Maqsood Ali as Mutawalli had moved an application for recalling the order. Pursuant to which notices were issued to the parties and after hearing them, the order dated 29-9-1988 was recalled on 27-2-1990. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 8791 of 1990 which was allowed on 7-9-1992 directing the Board to decide the matter on merjits as indicated in the said order. This is how the present impugned order dated 12-3-1993 came to be passed by the Board. This order has been assailed on the grounds indicated above. 12. The scope of the order dated 12-3-1993 is to be tested on the basis of the direction contained in the order dated 7-9-1992 passed in Writ Petition No. 8791 of 1990. The said order directed reconsidera tion of the matter taking into account all aspects under Section 19 (2) (o) of the Waqfs Act. The interest of the Waqf is one of the prime consideration. If it is found by the Board that the petitioner is working against the interest of the Waqf then he can be removed. Therefore, the Board will issue notice to both the parties and con sider the matter in detail and pass a fresh order appointing Mutawalli according to law, having regard to the direction con tained in the Deed of Waqf. 13. Now the question of removal of the petitioner under Section 55 of the said Act can crop up only if the petitioner was appointed as Mutawalli. If he was not ap pointed by the Board, in that event, Sec tion 55 cannot come into play. In the present case admittedly it is not a removal of the Matawalli. Inasmuch as right from 1964, the committee of management was being appointed and consisted 7 members. While in 1968, the committee consisted 5 members of which the petitioner was a member secretary. The petitioner Maq sood Ali was included in the committee of management and had been the Secretary of such committee of management for long time. Such committee was appointed suc cessively even in 1978. Only when an order was passed on 25-7- 1978, the petitioner became aggrieved and filed a reference which was dismissed on 2-5-1986. The petitioner Maq sood Ali was included in the committee of management and had been the Secretary of such committee of management for long time. Such committee was appointed suc cessively even in 1978. Only when an order was passed on 25-7- 1978, the petitioner became aggrieved and filed a reference which was dismissed on 2-5-1986. This dis missal of the reference was challenged in revision No. 491 of 1986 which was ul timately dismissed as not pressed. As soon as the revision is dismissed as not pressed, the order of dismissal of the reference which was stayed in the said revision be comes operative and continue to survive so long as the order remain and states on the face of (sic) Maqsood Ali. Admittedly Shri Maqsood Ali was appointed as Mutwalli on 29-9-1988 pursuant to the interim order passed on 22- 7-1986 in the revision. Two years two months difference between the interim order and the appointment of the petitioner pre- supposes that the com mittee had been functioning during this period. Therefore, it was open to the Board to opt to include shri Maqsood Ali in the committee of management. Within the scope and ambit of the interim order passed in revision, Maqsood Ali could be included within the committee of manage ment and he could not have been ap pointed to the exclusion of the committee of management as Mutawalli. Even if he is so appointed on 29-9-1988 on a miscon ceived interpretation of the order dated 22-7-1986, still then the said appointment being an appointment in terms of the in terim order, cannot survive after the inter im order lapses. The revision being dis missed as not pressed, the interim order has merged in the said order and had there by lapsed. The interim order cannot sur vive once the matter is dismissed or dis posed of and nothing is indicated in the order disposing of the matter as to what would happen to such appointment pur suant to the interim order. In the present case, the order of dismissal does not indi cate as to what would have been the conse quence of the dismissal with regard to the appointment made in compliance of the interim order. In the present case, the order of dismissal does not indi cate as to what would have been the conse quence of the dismissal with regard to the appointment made in compliance of the interim order. Therefore, in normal course, the interim order having its exist ence during the pendency of the revision and after appropriate order is made in the pending matter, it merges with the final order passed in the revision. The revision having been dismissed, the interim order cannot survive on account of its merger and has thereby lapsed. Therefore, no benefit could be obtained on the basis of the petitioners appointment on 29-9-1988 pursuant to the interim order granted in the revision as soon as the same stood dismissed as not pressed on 8-2-1989. 14. Now when the order dated 29-9-1988 was sought to be recalled by Shri Sadat Ali and the same stood recalled by order dated 27- 2-1990 which was the sub ject-matter in Writ Petition No. 8791 of 1990, the question has to be governed in the light of the said decision in the back drop as mentioned above. No decision has been arrived in the said order dated 7-9-92 passed in Writ Petition No. 8791 of 1990 with regard to the consequence of the in terim order passed in Revision No. 491 of 1986 vis-a-vis the order dated 29-9-1988 and the impact of the dismissal of the revision on 8-2-89. These questions were kept open for being decided in accordance with law in the said order dated 7-9-92. 15. Therefore, the question of removal of Shri Maqsood Ali under Sec tion 55 of the Act of his being appointed as Mutawalli on 29- 9-88 does not stand to reason because he was not the Mutawalli as contemplated in Section 55 of the Act. Inasmuch as it is not a case of removal of the Mutawalli but it is a case where the appointment itself has lapsed or extin guished by reason of the legal impact on the dismissal of the revisional application by reason of the appointment being made in compliance of the interim order granted therein that too outside the scope and ambit of the interim order so granted in the revision. Inasmuch as the said interim order never contemplated appointment of Shri Maqsood Ali as Mutawalli to the ex clusion of the committee of management. Inasmuch as the said interim order never contemplated appointment of Shri Maqsood Ali as Mutawalli to the ex clusion of the committee of management. On the other hand, the interim order had permitted an option to the Board to in clude Shri Maqsood Ali in the committee of management. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the contention of Shri V. M. Zaidi, learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to his proposition that unless Shri Maqsood Ali is removed under Sec tion 55 of the Act no fresh appointment could be made. 16. Now it is not being a question of removal and there being no Mutawalli, it is open to the Board to arrange for manage ment of the Waqf which it had done so through committee of management as in dicated in the Waqf deed itself in the ab sence of lineal descendants. Admittedly, both Shri Maqsood Ali and Shri Sadat Ali are not lineal descendants and they are equally distant from the family of Waqifs and therefore one cannot claim preference over the other. This proposition is not disputed by Mr. Zaidi and which appears to have been so found in the impugned orderdated 12-3-1993. 17. Section 19 of the 1960 Act describes the functions of the Board which includes removal or appointment of Mutawalli. Proviso to sub-section 2 (o) of Section 19 provides that in the appoint ment of Mutawallis or in making any other management of Waqf property, the Board shall be guided, as far as possible, by the directions of the waqif, if any. As we have seen earlier, the direction contained in the waqf deed contemplate appointment of 5 member committee. Therefore, it cannot be saiq that in not appointing sole Mutawalli and appointing committee of management, the direction of Waqf deed has been violated. Then again the provision contemplates that the discretion of the Board should be guided as far as possible by the direction of the Waqif. Directions if necessary may be ignored if the Board so feels in the interest of Waqf particularly when it is not in confrontation with the direction contained in the waqf deed. Then again the provision contemplates that the discretion of the Board should be guided as far as possible by the direction of the Waqif. Directions if necessary may be ignored if the Board so feels in the interest of Waqf particularly when it is not in confrontation with the direction contained in the waqf deed. Therefore, in the present case even in terms of Section 19 (2) (o) the Board is free to decide the question having ob tained guidance from the direction con tained ii} the waqf deed which provided appointment of five member committee in certain contingency which is in existence in the present case. In the impugned order dated 12-3-1993, the question of appoint ment of the petitioner Shri Maqsood Ali was also considered in the light of the observation made in the order dated 7-9-1992 as to whether the appointment of Shri Maqsood Ali would be in tae interest of waqf. It has come into a finding that Shri Maqsood Ali had been working against the interest of the Waqf, therefore, he was not included in the committee of manage ment. This finding is supported by various facts particularly the earlier orders through which the Shri Maqsood Ali was excluded bn account of certain allegations against him which fact stand concluded by order dated 2-5-1986 dismissing the refer ence whicjh stood confirmed by reason of dismissal of the revision as not pressed on 8-2-1989. 18. I have perused the impugned order. It does not appear from the said order that in any manner the Board had flouted any of the direction contained in the order dated 7-9-1992 in which it was observed that the petitioner Shri Maqsood Ali had been working as Mutawalli for long may be a relevant consideration but it is not the sole consideration and that the management should be made in the inter est of the waqf and direction of the waqif which should be paramount considera tion. Admittedly the Board had issued notices to both the parties and had con sidered the entire matter in detail and had passed a fresh order having regard to all the consideration which ought to have been taken into account. A perusal of said order shows that the same is in detail and supported by cogent reasons. Admittedly the Board had issued notices to both the parties and had con sidered the entire matter in detail and had passed a fresh order having regard to all the consideration which ought to have been taken into account. A perusal of said order shows that the same is in detail and supported by cogent reasons. The findings of the facts cannot be- interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless any perversity is brought to its notice. During the course of argument, no perversity has been brought to the notice of the Court. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, recalling of the order dated 29-9-1988,18-1-1989 and 19-1-1989 and appointing five member com mittee including Shri Sadat Ali cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. 19. The writ petition fails and is ac cordingly dismissed. 20. There will be, however, no order as to cost. Petition dismissed. .