JUDGMENT Dr. MOTILAL B. NAIK, ACJ : This writ appeal, by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.1.2003 made in WP No.92 of 2003 disposing of the writ petition with certain directions. 2. The 1st respondent herein filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the constitution of the Committee by the A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent in the writ petition and the 2nd respondent herein, by proceedings dated 29.6.1998 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Sections 18 and 27 of the Wakf Act, 1955 (for short the Act) and for other consequential reliefs. 3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at the stage of admission disposed of the writ petition in the following terms : "Prima facie a reading of the impugned order makes it clear that the respondents have not prescribed the period of the term of office. Section 18 of the Wakf Act and Regulation 11 says that the term of office is three years. Contrary to these provisions of law, even though the term of office has already expired from 29.6.1998, therefore, the Board has to constitute a Committee as per the provisions of the Act and the respondents cannot be continued beyond the period of three years unless it is extended. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the Ist respondent to consider the matter as per Section 18 of the Wakf Act and Regulation 11 of the Regulations and take a decision to constitute the Committee or to take over direct management of the Dargah, as per law. This exercise has to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 4. Hence this writ appeal by the 1st respondent in the writ petition assailing the validity of the above order. 5. Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/Ist respondent, submitted that the 1st respondent-Committee was appointed to manage the affairs of Dargah Hzt. Hence this writ appeal by the 1st respondent in the writ petition assailing the validity of the above order. 5. Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/Ist respondent, submitted that the 1st respondent-Committee was appointed to manage the affairs of Dargah Hzt. Brahana Shah Saheb and the Mosque and the properties attached to it and for such other purposes as indicated in the order dated 29.6.1998 constituting the Committee; that as many as 11 persons were appointed as members of the Managing Committee; that the writ petition is filed making only the President of the said Committee as party-respondent and other members of the Committee were not made as parties to the writ petition and, hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge at the stage of admission itself without affording an opportunity to the appellant and the other members of the Committee have their say in the matter. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the procedure as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act has been followed and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the order of the Wakf Board dated 29.6.1998. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the Ist respondent/writ petitioner did not state in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as to how he is interested in the affairs of the Dargah and the Mosque and in the absence of such particulars, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Qureshi, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Wakf Board submitted that apart from Section 18 of the Act, which governs the formation of Committees etc., Regulation 11 of the sub-rules framed for management of mosques, prescribes the tenure of office of the Managing Committee as 3 years and not more than that, and since the order dated 26.9.1998, impugned in the writ petition, does not prescribe the period for which the Managing Committee is constituted, if cannot be sustained in law. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that since no such period is prescribed in the impugned order, the learned Single Judge was right in disposing of the writ petition with certain directions and hence it needs no interference by this Court. 7. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. 8. It should be stated at the threshold that the writ petition, should have been dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. As could be seen from the impugned order, the Managing Committee was constituted with the appellant herein as the President and 10 other persons as Secretary and other members of the Managing Committee. The writ petitioner without making all of them as party-respondents filed the writ petition impleading only the appellant, the President of the Managing Committee, as the 1st respondent. Secondly, under subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Act, the Wakf Board is entitled review the functioning of the various committees constituted by it and to fix the term of office of the Committees so constituted. It is also incidentally stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board that when somebody comes forward to be appointed as Mutawalli the Wakf Board is entitled to consider such person for appointment as Mutawalli and when once the Mutawalli is appointed, the committee constituted to manage the affairs of the Dargah or the Mosque, as the case may be ceases to function. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of learned Single Judge dated 9.1.2003 made in WP, No.92 of 2003 is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 10. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.1.2003 made in WP No.(93) 92 of 2003 is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.