JUDGMENT ( 1. ) PETITIONERS in this petition have sought for quashing the order dated 18th August, 2007 passed by the Karnataka Wakf tribunal, Mysore Division, Mysore in Application No. 3 of 2006 as per annexure-M. Further, petitioners have sought for setting aside the order dated 16th March, 2006 passed by the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, bangalore-Respondent No. 1 bearing No. KTW/cmc/8/mnd/2005-06 as per Annexure-J. Petitioners have also sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to constitute the Managing Committee of the third respondent - Jamia Masjid, Mecca Masjid and Allied Institutions in accordance with the approved bye-laws as per Annexure-A. ( 2. ) THE petitioners herein claim that, they are the members of the muslim community residing in Nagamangala Town, Mandya District and they are the beneficiaries and persons interested in the Wakf, namely jamia Masjid Mecca Masjid (Anjuman-E-Mosque), IDGA and Kabarsthan, k. Mallenahally and Allied properties, Nagamangala, Mandya Dist. The managing Committee of the Wakf is constituted and is governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 and the rules made thereunder and also the bye-laws of the State Board of Wakfs. The State Board of Wakfs, for the proper administration and management of the Wakfs, has adopted a model Scheme called the bye-laws. However, the State Board of Wakfs, without holding election as per the bye-laws, has appointed the Managing committee. Petitioners claiming to be beneficiaries and interested persons in the management of Wakfs, have questioned the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 16th March, 2006 passed by the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, Bangalore - first respondent herein at Annexure-J, by filing an application on the file of the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Mysore Division, mysore in Application No. 3 of 2006. The application filed by these petitioners had come up for consideration before the Karnataka Wakf tribunal (herein after called "wakf Tribunal" for short) on 18th August 2007 and the Wakf Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on record, including careful perusal of the approved bye-laws of the Managing Committee, has dismissed the application filed by these petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the competent authority, as well as the Wakf Tribunal, as referred above, vide Annexures-J and M respectively and seeking other appropriate reliefs, as stated supra, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents. . ( 3. ) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, at the outset, submitted that, the Wakf Tribunal has committed a grave error and illegality, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, in dismissing the application filed by petitioners on the ground that, they are not the interested persons, by ignoring the provision of Section 3k of the Wakf act, 1995. Further, he submitted that, the constitution of the Board of wakf is contrary to the bye-law of the State Board of Wakfs for the reason that, the Wakf Tribunal, without any justification and contrary to the affidavit filed by the second petitioner, by way of Examination-in-Chief, has rejected the application filed by petitioners. It is the case of petitioners that, the Wakf Tribunal has neither looked into nor considered nor given any specific finding as to whether petitioners are interested persons or not. Therefore, he submitted at the outset that, the orders impugned passed by both the authorities are liable to be quashed. ( 4. ) PER eontra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned orders passed by both the authorities stating that, both the orders impugned are passed strictly in consonance with the approved bye laws of the Wakf Board and after duly following the relevant provisions of the Wakf Act and after considering the objections filed by the interested persons and the residents of the Town. They submitted that, the Muslim Jamath of Nagamangala Town, after calling for the General Body Meeting, wherein 228 persons participated and overruling the objections filed by 23 persons and noting that, remaining persons have not signed the objections and after verification that, the signatures are all bogus signatures, has unanimously elected 15 members committee to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Institution. To substantiate the said submission, learned Counsel appearing for third respondent has placed reliance on Annexures- R1 to R3, produced along with the statement of objections filed on behalf of third respondent and drew my specific attention to Annexure-R1 dated 27th July 2005, wherein it is stated that, the Managing Committee of Jamia Masjid and Allied wakfs Institutions of Nagamangala Town was constituted by the Board by their order dated 17th July, 2002, for a period of three years and the said term expires on 16th July, 2005 and in the meanwhile, the Muslim jamath of Nagamangala Town has conducted the General Body Meeting of the Jamath at Nagamangala Town on 2nd July 2005 and unanimously elected fifteen Members Committee (without office bearers) to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Institution. In pursuance of the said annexure-R1, public notice was issued calling for objections or suggestions vide Annexure-R2 dated 3rd August, 2005. In pursuance of the objections received, one Sri Janab Syed Mudeer Aga, Board Member was authorized to enquire into the matter and submit his report and the Chief Executive officer was to issue suitable orders based on the report of the Hon'ble member vide Annexure-R3. Further, it is specifically referred in Annexure-R4, dated 13th September, 2005, annexed to the statement of objections filed on behalf of third respondent, addressed by the Deputy Commissioner and Administrator, District Wakf Advisory Committee, Mandya to the chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, Bangalore that, the objection petition dated 28th July, 2005 was also enquired and placed the matter before the Jamath of Nagamangala present on 12th August, 2005 at Jamia Masjid, Nagamangala Town and after hearing the objection petition dated 28th July, 2005 and 10th August, 2005, the Jamath was informed that, the petition was signed by only 3 to 4 persons by names of other persons with bogus signatures and further, the petitioners who have put the signatures of other persons were also not present before the Jamath and before the Wakf Officer for discussion in the matter. Further, it is stated in Annexure-R4 at internal page 2 that, about 228 general body members were present and unanimously selected fifteen members committee for the management of the Institution as per the approved bye-laws of the Institution as per Clause 4 of the approved bye-laws dated 18th January, 2001. Further, it is stated in Annexure-R4 at internal page 2 that, about 228 general body members were present and unanimously selected fifteen members committee for the management of the Institution as per the approved bye-laws of the Institution as per Clause 4 of the approved bye-laws dated 18th January, 2001. The copy of the said communication has been forwarded to the third respondent. Further, he submitted that, the subject-matter was placed before the Board in its meeting held on 18th February, 2006 and the Board after careful consideration vide its Resolution No. 20 of Regular Agenda has referred the matter to Hon'ble Board Member, janab Mudeer Aga Saheb for giving his report and based on the said report, the Chief Executive Officer was authorized to pass suitable orders. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer, on the basis of the recommendation made by the Board Member vide his letter dated 14th march, 2006, has constituted the Fifteen Member Committee to the third respondent - Institution, by his order dated 16th March, 2006. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for third respondent vehemently submitted that, these relevant clinching material that were very much within the knowledge of the petitioners, have not been intentionally and deliberately produced before the Court and the same have been purposely suppressed by the petitioners both before the Wakf Tribunal as well as before this court. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed as misconceived on ground of suppression of material facts. Further, learned Counsel appearing for respondents specifically pointed out that, the second petitioner is the only person who contested before the Wakf Tribunal and the said person has no locus standi to question the correctness or otherwise of the constitution of the Managing committee Members as per bye-law No. 3 (b) as he is not the ordinary resident of Nagamangala Town for a period of twelve months and that, he is a Government Servant working as Urdu Teacher at Bellur and as such he is unaware of the Management of the affairs of the Managing committee. Further, learned Counsel appearing for respondents specifically pointed out that, the writ petition filed by petitioners is without authorization from petitioners 2 and 3. Therefore, they submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost. ( 5. Further, learned Counsel appearing for respondents specifically pointed out that, the writ petition filed by petitioners is without authorization from petitioners 2 and 3. Therefore, they submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost. ( 5. ) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents. ( 6. ) AFTER careful perusal of the rival submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, as referred above, the only point that arise for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to: whether the Constitution of the Managing Committee is in consonance with the relevant bye-laws, Wakf Act read with its Rules? after careful evaluation of the entire material available on record and after perusal of the orders impugned, it is manifest on the face of the orders impugned that, both the authorities have not committed any error of law or material irregularity nor the orders passed by the said authorities have resulted in any miscarriage of justice. It is significant to note as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for respondents that, the second petitioner. Sri Ayub Pasha who is the only contesting petitioner before the Tribunal, is not the ordinary resident of the Nagamangala town for the previous twelve months and he has been prohibited or debarred from redressing his grievances as an interested person, as envisaged under the Scheme of Management of the third respondent. It is relevant to extract the relevant provision 3 (b) of the Bye-law/scheme of management for Control, Administration and Management of third respondent - Institution: "3. "jamath" mean" and shall include all muslims who:-a) xxx xxxx xxx b) are and have been residing or are or have been carrying on business in the area of the jurisdiction of the wakf continuously for a minimum period of 12 months immediately prior to the beginning of official year of the wakf or the date of appointment of the Commissioner under clause 1 of Schedule B hereto whichever is earlier." (emphasis supplied) In the instant case, the Wakf Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has specifically recorded a finding that, petitioners are neither Mutawalli nor persons interested in Wakf nor aggrieved by the impugned orders and hence, they have no locus standi to file the application. Further, it is specifically recorded that, the President of the present Committee in his examination-in-chief in the form of an Affidavit has stated that, the second petitioner is a Government employee working as 'urdu' Teacher at Bellur and as such, he is unaware of the management of the affairs of the third respondent - Committee. This fact has been intentionally and deliberately suppressed by the petitioners both before the Wakf Tribunal as well as before this Court. Further, after careful perusal of the material available on file, particularly the Annexures produced along with the statement of objections filed on behalf of third respondent, as referred above, it emerges as a matter of fact that, it is specifically referred that, the General Body Meeting of the third respondent - Jamia Masjid and Allied Wakfs Institutions of nagamangala Town has been conducted on dated 2nd July, 2005 and unanimously elected fifteen members to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Institution out of the 228 general body members present as per clause-4 of the approved bye-laws of the Institution dated 18th January, 2001. Further, it is specifically referred in the communication dated 13th september, 2005 issued by the Administrator and the District Wakf advisory Committee, Mandya District to the Chief Executive Officer - the first respondent herein vide Annexure R4 that, the objections filed has been considered and the same was placed before the Committee on 12 august, 2005 and after hearing the objections dated 28th July, 2005 and 10th August, 2005 filed by the interested persons, the Jamath was informed that, the objection petition was signed by only 3 to 4 persons and the other signatures put on the objections were also bogus signatures. Further, it is specifically observed in the said Communication that, even the petitioners who have put other persons' signature were also not present before the Jamath and before the Wakf Officer for discussion in the matter. Therefore, by overruling the objections which was baseless, the General body Members, who were present before the Wakf Officer have drawn the Mahazar to overrule the objections and allegations for the proposed constitution of Managing Committee of the Institution and suggested the board to constitute the proposed Committee as per public notice dated 12th August, 2005. Therefore, the jurisdictional Competent Authority requested the Chief Executive Officer to constitute the Managing committee. Therefore, the jurisdictional Competent Authority requested the Chief Executive Officer to constitute the Managing committee. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before the President of the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, Bangalore and the Board, as per annexure-R7 to the statement of objections filed on behalf of third respondent, has stated that, the said subject was placed before the Board in its meeting held on 18th February, 2006 and after careful consideration and as per its resolution No. 20 of Regular agenda has referred the matter to the Hon'ble Board Member, Janab Mudeer Aga Saheb for giving his report and based on his report, the Chief Executive Officer was authorized to pass suitable order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the said Board member, by his report/communication dated 14th March, 2006, has recommended to approve the Managing Committee as proposed by the deputy Commissioner and Administrator, District Wakf Advisory committee, Mandya. Accordingly, the Additional Chief Executive Officer, karnataka State Board of Wakfs - first respondent herein has passed the impugned order dated 16th March, 2006 bearing No. KTW/cmg/8/mnd/ 2005-06 and constituted the Managing Committee consisting of fifteen members for a period of three years, in exercise of the powers conferred under the provision of Wakf Act, 1995 read with Wakf Rules, 1997. Therefore, the constitution of the Managing Committee members is, after following due procedure as envisaged under the Wakf Act read with its rules. Hence, I do not find any error or illegality as such committed by the said authorities nor petitioners have made out any good grounds as such to interfere in the impugned orders. Hence, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed as misconceived. Accordingly, it is dismissed. ( 7. ) FURTHER, it can be seen that, the Wakf Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral evidence of PW1 and RWs 1 and 2 and documentary evidence at Exs. P1 to P3 on behalf of applicants and Exs. D1 to D6, on behalf of respondents, and after critical evaluation of the relevant material available on file by extracting the public notice at Ex. D2, and with specific reference to Section 83 (2) of the Wakf Act, 1995, has passed the impugned order. P1 to P3 on behalf of applicants and Exs. D1 to D6, on behalf of respondents, and after critical evaluation of the relevant material available on file by extracting the public notice at Ex. D2, and with specific reference to Section 83 (2) of the Wakf Act, 1995, has passed the impugned order. The Wakf Tribunal has specifically recorded a finding at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order and by assigning valid and cogent reasons, held that, the proposed Managing Committee is constituted as per the approved bye-laws of the Managing Committee. It is further specifically referred that, the petitioners are neither mutawalli nor interested persons in Wakf nor aggrieved by the impugned orders. Therefore, the Wakf Tribunal has rightly rejected the application filed by these three petitioners. Both the authorities, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, with reference to relevant provision of the Wakf Act and the Rules and the approved bye-laws, have recorded the finding of fact against the petitioners and in view of the said concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities after appreciation and re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on file, I am of the considered view that, interference by this court in the impugned orders passed by the Competent Authority is un called for nor I find any merit or good ground as such made out by petitioners. Hence, the writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 05,000/- imposed for suppression of material facts before this Court, as referred above in the preceding paragraphs. The said cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be deposited by petitioners 1 to 3 before the third respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If they fail to deposit the aforesaid cost, the third respondent - Managing Committee is permitted to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the same, in accordance with law.