JUDGMENT V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. Challenging a spate of directions issued by the learned judge in a writ petition, for the preparation of an electoral roll and the conduct of free and fair elections to a Jumma Mosque, the Ad hoc Management Committee of the Mosque has come up on Appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Veera. Karthiravan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 3. A Wakf was created by one L.K. Sheik Mohammed, in Kayapattinam Town, Tuticorin District, in the year 1958 and a property purchased by him in 1957 was dedicated to the Wakf by a registered deed dated 10.12.1958. The first General Council meeting of the wakf was held on 3.6.1960, with 366 members and a set of bye-laws were framed on 29.7.1960. Till the founder was alive, the Management of the Wakf was quite smooth for more than three decades, till the year 1992. 4. In 1993, a Petition was filed before the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board against the Committee of Management, seeking fresh elections. On the said Petition, the Board passed an order dated 18.4.1998, which became the subject matter of a challenge in W.P. No. 7307 of 1998. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 3.3.2000, directing the Wakf Board to hear the parties and decide the question of who constituted the electorate of the Wakf, within two months. Till a decision was taken by the Wakf Board, the existing Committee, whose term had expired in November 1999, was directed to continue in office. 5. In pursuance of the above directions, the Wakf Board passed a fresh order dated 29.7.2000, taking the original 366 members of the wakf as reflected in the General Body Meeting held on 3.6.1960, to be electorate. Since the Board felt that some of the members would have migrated out of Kayalpattinam and some may have died, the Wakf Board instructed the Field Officers to inspect the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3.6.1960 and identify the members who were there at that time. To accommodate persons who were dead (among those 366 members), the Wakf Board also permitted the male descendants of the migrated and the dead, to be enrolled as electorate. 6. To accommodate persons who were dead (among those 366 members), the Wakf Board also permitted the male descendants of the migrated and the dead, to be enrolled as electorate. 6. The above order of the Wakf Board dated 29.7.2000, became the subject matter of a fresh writ petition in W.P. No. 15787 of 2000 filed by a few members of the General Council on the ground that the membership of the Wakf need not be restricted to the original 366 members and their male descendants. The said writ petition was allowed by an order dated 7.3.2003, the operative portion of which, reads as follows: "11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the respondent is quashed and the respondent is required to consider afresh the matter in the light of the observations made. The respondent shall give an opportunity of hearing to the persons who are presently discharging the function of the Executive Committee by virtue of the order passed by the High Court on the earlier occasion and also the present interveners. After going through the relevant documents to be produced by various persons concerned, the persons who are members of the General Body have to be ascertained and thereafter a new Executive Committee and other office bearers shall be elected in accordance with the procedure. The Meeting is to be convened by the respondent No. 1 and the elections/selection can take place in the presence of a representative of the respondent No. 1. This process should be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order and the present Executive Committee shall continue to remain in charge on ad hoc basis for day-to-day administration. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 7. A person who intervened in the above writ petition W.P. No. 15787 of 2000 and objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, filed an Appeal in W.A. No. 1843 of 2003, against the aforesaid order dated 7.3.2003 passed in the writ petition. When the Writ Appeal was taken up for hearing, the appellant therein stated no objection for the preparation of the electoral roll as per the order of the learned single Judge (in the writ petition), but requested that the election be conducted immediately. When the Writ Appeal was taken up for hearing, the appellant therein stated no objection for the preparation of the electoral roll as per the order of the learned single Judge (in the writ petition), but requested that the election be conducted immediately. In view of the stand so taken by the appellant in that Appeal, the Division Bench disposed of the Writ Appeal by an order dated 2.7.2007, confirming the order of the single Judge, but also directing the Wakf Board to complete the process of preparation of electoral roll within 3 months and to conduct the elections within a further period of 3 months. 8. Subsequently, two writ petitions were filed. One was by a third party, in W.P. No. 9947 of 2008, seeking a direction to the Wakf Board to distribute Application forms to the willing and eligible residents of Kayalpattinam, to enable them to become members of the General Body of the Wakf. Another writ petition W.P. No. 12228 of 2008 was by the intervener in the previous writ petition viz., W.P. No. 15787 of 2000, seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct free and fair elections. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by orders dated 6.11.2008 and 23.12.2008 respectively, even at the stage of admission, though the Wakf itself (appellant herein) was not a party in the former writ petition. In both writ petitions, the Wakf had no notice. In the first writ petition, a direction was issued to the Wakf Board to issue Applications to the eligible candidates, if they directly approached the Board. In the second writ petition, a direction was issued to the Board to conduct free and fair elections. 9. In pursuance of the above orders, a public notice was issued by the Wakf Board in a Tamil Daily in November 2008 and 2,430 applications were received. Therefore, the existing Executive Committee convened a meeting on 31.12.2008 and constituted a Sub-Committee comprising of 14 members to scrutinize the Application forms. After scrutiny, the Sub Committee classified all the Applications into three categories as follows: (i) Persons who were members of the General Body at the time of the elections in the years 1960, 1985 and 1992 and who had now applied. (ii) Persons who are eligible to become members as per the bye-laws. (iii) Persons whose eligibility as per the requirements of the bye-laws, was doubtful. 10. (ii) Persons who are eligible to become members as per the bye-laws. (iii) Persons whose eligibility as per the requirements of the bye-laws, was doubtful. 10. After the categorization of the Applications as above and their submission to the Wakf Board, the Wakf Board decided to interview those who fell under the third category, so that their eligibility can be examined with reference to the bye-laws. When the interviews were in progress, one of the aspirants, whose case fell under the third category, came up with a writ petition in W.P. No.2550 of 2009, seeking a mandamus, to direct the Wakf Board and its Superintendent, to scrutinize the Applications through a Committee, comprising of members not connected with the Wakf in question and thereafter to conduct free and fair elections. 11. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Judge, by an order dated 21.4.2009, with the following directions: "9. Accordingly, the following directions are issued with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties to the writ petition: (i) The second respondent is directed to ensure a free and fair election to select the Office Bearers of Al Jamiul Azhar Jumma Mosque, Kayalpattinam and steps should be taken to complete the election process as early as possible. (ii) The scrutiny of the Applications submitted for the purpose of admission to the Wakf should be independently considered by the second respondent. (iii) The second respondent is entitled to take the assistance of the third respondent for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether the applicant satisfies the conditions precedent for becoming a member. (iv) The opinion tendered by the third respondent with respect to the eligibility of an applicant is not binding on the second respondent. It would be open to the second respondent to take a decision independent of the opinion furnished by the third respondent. (v) The applicants should be permitted to prove their eligibility to become the members and the scrutiny should be in their presence. For the purpose of enabling to appear before the second respondent for scrutiny, they should be given reasonable notice. (vi) The third respondent has no authority to participate in the deliberations of the Wakf Board with respect to the scrutiny, except as indicated above. (vii) The second respondent is directed to consider the Applications in accordance with the bye-laws of the Jamaath. (vi) The third respondent has no authority to participate in the deliberations of the Wakf Board with respect to the scrutiny, except as indicated above. (vii) The second respondent is directed to consider the Applications in accordance with the bye-laws of the Jamaath. (viii) In case the second respondent decides to reject the Application, reasons should be recorded, and (ix) It would be open to the second respondent to seek the assistance of the police for an orderly conduct of the scrutiny proceedings as well as the election process." 12. Aggrieved by some of the above directions, which virtually reduced the present Committee of Management to a dummy, the Committee of the Wakf has come up with the present writ appeal contending inter alia that the task of enrolment/admission of members to the Wakf cannot be entrusted to the Board and that the consent given by the learned counsel for the appellant was only for the conduct of an enquiry with regard to the applicants whose identity was doubtful and whose cases fell under Category-3. 13. In the above matrix of facts, a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, learned Standing counsel for the Wakf Board, as to the maintainability of the Writ Appeal on the ground that there cannot be an Appeal against an order passed by consent and that if the factum of consent itself is disputed, the party raising such a dispute should go back to the same learned Judge and invite a finding. 14. There is no quarrel with the above contention, as a proposition of law. What is reflected in a judgment is normally presumed to be a true and correct record of what transpired within the Court room. Therefore, a statement made in a judgment by a learned Judge that the parties consented to an order, cannot be allowed to be disputed except by way of a Review before the very same learned Judge. Therefore, even at the outset, we reject the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not give consent to some of the directions contained in the order under Appeal. It is not possible for us, sitting on Appeal, to make an enquiry as to what are the directions to which the appellant gave consent and what are the directions to which he did not give consent. It is not possible for us, sitting on Appeal, to make an enquiry as to what are the directions to which the appellant gave consent and what are the directions to which he did not give consent. If the appellant had not given consent, as stated in the order of the learned Judge, for some of the directions contained in paragaraph-9, the only course of action open to the appellant, is to go back before the same learned Judge and seek a Review.. 15. However, there is a small area within which a consent decree is also amenable to challenge. In AIR 1974 SC 994 : (1974) 2 SCC 70 , the Supreme Court held that by consent, the parties cannot achieve what is contrary to law and that a decree merely based on such consent, cannot furnish a judicial amulet against statutory violation. It was also held therein that where a Statute embodies a public policy and consequentially prescribes the presence of some conditions for the grant of reliefs, the parties cannot by pass the law by exercise of a consent decree and that mere judicial imprimatur may not validate such a decree. Similarly, it is settled law that by consent, the parties cannot confer the jurisdiction upon a Court. 16. Therefore, the only question that we could consider in this Appeal is as to whether the order passed by the learned Judge, purportedly on the basis of consent, is violative of the law. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then the Appeal is maintainable. If it is in the negative, the Appeal is not maintainable. 17. Out of the several directions issued by the learned Judge, in paragraph-9 of his judgment, the appellant is aggrieved by those directions, by which even the power to scrutinise Applications for admission of members and to take a final decision is vested with the Wakf Board. By condition No. (ii) in paragraph-9, the learned Judge directed the scrutiny of Applications to be carried out independently by the Wakf Superintendent. By condition No. (iii), the learned Judge limited the role of the appellant only to inform the Wakf Superintendent whether an applicant satisfies the conditions precedent for admission to membership or not. Even this opinion tendered by the appellant, is made not binding upon the Wakf Superintendent, by condition No. (iv). By condition No. (iii), the learned Judge limited the role of the appellant only to inform the Wakf Superintendent whether an applicant satisfies the conditions precedent for admission to membership or not. Even this opinion tendered by the appellant, is made not binding upon the Wakf Superintendent, by condition No. (iv). By condition No. (vi), the appellant is declared as having no authority to participate in the deliberations of the Wakf Board, with respect to scrutiny of Applications, except as indicated in the other portions of paragraph-9. It is these directions, passed purportedly by consent, which have driven the appellant to come up with the present Appeal. Hence we have to see if these directions are contrary to law, so as to enable the appellant to maintain the Appeal, despite the statement in the judgment that it is an order by consent. 18. There is no dispute that the Wakf in question is a Public Wakf. In paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellant to the writ petition, the Appellant himself has stated that there were originally 25 Mosques in Kayalpattinam area, where prayers were offered 5 times a day. There was a Jumma Masjid known as "Periya Palli Vasal" where Friday prayers were offered. When disputes arose regarding the Management of the Jumma Masjid, a group of persons established Al Janiul Azahar Jumma Masjid in the year 1958 and bye-laws were framed on 3.6.1960, by the first group of members of the General Body. In the light of these admitted facts, it is clear that the Wakf in question is a Public Wakf. 19. If a Wakf is found to be a Public Wakf, the consequences that flow out of such a finding, can be narrated in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the leading case, AIR 1976 SC 1569 : (1976) 4 SCC 780 , as follows: "The word "Wakf" means detention or appropriation. According to the well recognized Hanafi School of Mahomedan Law when a Mahomedan dedicated his property for objects of charity or to God, he completely parts with the corpus which vests in God and never returns to the founder. According to the well recognized Hanafi School of Mahomedan Law when a Mahomedan dedicated his property for objects of charity or to God, he completely parts with the corpus which vests in God and never returns to the founder. Mahomedan Law contemplates two kinds of Wakfs - a Wakf which is private in nature where although the ultimate object is public charity of God, but the property vests in a set of beneficiaries chosen by the founder who appoints a Mutawalli to manage the Wakf property. We are, however, not concerned with private wakfs which are normally known as Wakf-alal-aulad. We are concerned with Public Wakf i.e., dedication made for the purpose of public charity e.g., an Imam-Bada, a Mosque, a Serai and the like. So far as the dedication to a Mosque is concerned, it is governed by special rules and special equity in the light of which a particular dedication has to be determined. A Mosque is obviously a place where the Muslims offer their prayers. It is well-known that there are certain formalities which have to be observed by the Muslims before they observe the prayers. These formalities are- (i) Wazoo i.e., washing of hands and feet in a manner prescribed by Shariat; (ii) the recitation of "Azaah" and "Ikamat" which is usually done by the Pesh Imam or the Muayzin; (iii) there must be a person who possesses virtuous qualities and a knowledge of Koran and other religious rites who should lead the prayers. This is necessary in case of prayers offered in congregation. A single Muslim can also offer his prayers with or without an imam but the prayers in a congregation or a jamat are offered only behind an Imam who leads the prayers. As Islam is an extremely modern and liberal religion, there is no question of any person being denied admission in a Mosque for the purpose of offering prayers and that is why the law is so strict that the moment a person is allowed to offer his prayers in a mosque, the Mosque becomes dedicated to the public." 20. Therefore, no person can be denied admission into a Mosque, for the purpose of offering prayers. In other words, the right of admission to a Mosque, cannot be restricted, if the purpose of entry is for offering worship. Therefore, no person can be denied admission into a Mosque, for the purpose of offering prayers. In other words, the right of admission to a Mosque, cannot be restricted, if the purpose of entry is for offering worship. But the right of entry and the right to worship in a Mosque, are not synonymous with the right to become a member of the Jamaath. The right to become a member of the Jamaath and the right to elect or get elected to the Executive Committee of the Jamaath, are not automatic and these rights cannot be equated to the right to offer worship in a Mosque. 21. In AIR 2005 SC 2306 : (2005) 5 SCC 632 , it was held that no citizen has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution to become the member of a voluntary association or a co-operative society. His right is governed either by the provisions of the Statute or by the bye-laws. Therefore, it was held therein that the action of a Society in refusing membership to a person has to be tested on the anvil of the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the Society. 22. In Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar of Co-operative Societies (supra) case, the Supreme Court cited is earlier decision in AIR 1971 SC 966 : (1971) 1 SCC 678 , wherein it was held that the right to form an association necessarily implies that the persons forming the association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association and that any law by which members are introduced into such association without a choice to the members to keep them out, would be a law violating the right to form an association. Though it was argued in Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar of Co-operative Societies (supra) case that the decision in Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India (supra) case was distinguished in AIR 1985 SC 973 : (1985) 2 SCC 670 , on the ground that co-operative Societies are governed and controlled by Statute and that statutory interference is always permissible, the Supreme Court ultimately held that without an amendment to the Statute, a Society's right to refuse membership to a person, cannot be negated. 23. 23. Therefore, the right to become a member of the Jamaath, can be validly restricted by the bye-laws and no outsider can compel a Jamaath to admit him to the membership. This right of the Jamaath to restrict, by its bye-laws, the right of admission to its membership, is recognized in the order passed in the earliest writ petition W.P. No. 7307 of 1998, the order passed in the next writ petition W.P. No. 15787 of 2000, the order passed in the writ appeal W.A. No. 1843 of 2003 and the order passed in W.P. No. 2550 of 2009 (out of which the present Appeal rises). 24. In the bye-laws framed on 3.6.1960 by Al Jamiul Azhar Jumma Masjid (the Wakf in question), the following eligibility criteria is prescribed, for a person to become a member : (i) He must have accepted Al Jamiul Azhar Iumma Masjid as the Jumma Masjid. (ii) He must attend Jumma prayers in this Mosque, whenever available in town. (iii) He must have completed 18 years of age. 25. In the earliest writ petition W.P. No. 7307 of 1998, there was a reference to the above prescriptions in the bye-laws. In the order passed in the next writ petition W.P. No. 15787 of 2000, it was recorded in paragraph-7 as follows: "Therefore, a person is entitled to be the member of the General Body on the fulfillment of three conditions, namely (1) he must be a male above 18 years of age, (2) he must be the follower of Jamaath established on 26.9.1958, and (3) he must be coming to the Mosque to offer the prayer regularly while he is in town." The above portion of the order of the learned Judge in W.P. No. 15787 of 2000, was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1843 of 2003. Even in the order passed in W.P. No.2550 of 2009, which is the subject matter of the present Appeal, the above eligibility criteria was noted in paragraph-3 and 6. 26. Even in the order passed in W.P. No.2550 of 2009, which is the subject matter of the present Appeal, the above eligibility criteria was noted in paragraph-3 and 6. 26. Therefore, in the light of the prescription in the bye-laws, which has also received the seal of approval of this Court in two previous rounds of litigation and also in the light of the settled position that the right of entry and the right to offer worship are not to be confused with the right to become a member of the General body of a Public Wakf, the order of the learned Judge completely divesting the present Executive Committee (or ad hoc Committee, by whatever name it is called) of the power of admitting members, appears to be not in accordance with law. Moreover, the present Committee of Management, appears to have always consented to Wakf Board, preparing the electoral roll and conducting the elections, even in the previous rounds of litigation. This consent has obviously been taken by the learned Judge to be a consent even for entrusting the power of admission of members to the Wakf Board. 27. Moreover, a disputed question of fact arose in the writ petition. Though, the first respondent herein, claimed that he was eligible under the bye-laws to become a member of the Wakf, the appellant filed a counter contending that the first respondent herein never attended the Jumma Masjid managed by the appellant and that he acted against the interest of the appellant and that therefore, he was not entitled to become a member. In paragraph-6 of the counter, in W.P. No.2550 of 2009, the appellant has made a catergorical assertion that the first respondent did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. One of the criteria prescribed by the bye-laws is that the aspirant should be offering Jumma Worship in this Masjid whenever in town. The question whether a person has been offering such prayers in this Masjid, is a question of fact, which is within the exclusive knowledge of that person and the appellant herein. Therefore, if a decision on that question is left to the Wakf Board, making the advice of the appellant not binding on the Board, it would be a travesty of justice. Therefore, if a decision on that question is left to the Wakf Board, making the advice of the appellant not binding on the Board, it would be a travesty of justice. Since, this is disputed question of fact, the first respondent ought to have been directed to work out his remedies in terms of the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, through the machinery provided under the Act. 28. Mr. Veera. Kathiravan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the Wakf Board, contended that the task of preparation of the electoral roll, would include within its purview, the admission of members and that since the appellant agreed, even in W.P. No. 15787 of 2000 and W.P. No. 1843 of 2003, to the preparation of the electoral roll by the Wakf Board, the appellant cannot object to the directions issued by the learned Judge. 29. But, we are unable to countenance the above submission. Admission of members does not form part of the task of preparation of electoral roll. The preparation of the electoral roll includes within its purview, (i) the scrutiny of the register of members (ii) the deletion of the names of members who have expired or who have failed to pay subscriptions or who have been removed from the membership, and (iii) the adjudication of any dispute with regard to a person who is already admitted to the membership but whose name does not find a place in the Register or a person who is not a member but whose name finds a place in the Register. But, the distribution of Application forms to persons who want to become members, the scrutiny of their Applications and enrolling them as members, are not part and parcel of the process of preparation of electoral roll, in so far as a Society is concerned. Therefore, the consent given by the appellant in the previous and present writ petitions, to the preparation of the electoral roll by the Wakf Board, cannot be taken to include the power to distribute Application forms, scrutinise the forms and to admit members. 30. The direction issued in W.P. Nos. Therefore, the consent given by the appellant in the previous and present writ petitions, to the preparation of the electoral roll by the Wakf Board, cannot be taken to include the power to distribute Application forms, scrutinise the forms and to admit members. 30. The direction issued in W.P. Nos. 947 and 12228 of 2008, to the Wakf Board, for the distribution and scrutiny of Application forms, are not binding on the appellant, since the appellant was not made a party in W.P. No.9947 of 2008 and though made a party, they were not issued with any notice in W.P. No. 12228 of 2008. Both writ petitions were disposed of at the admission stage, without the appellant being made a party in one writ petition and the appellant not being issued with a notice in the other writ petition, despite being made a party. Therefore, the directions issued in those two writ petitions to the Wakf Board to distribute Applications and scrutinise them, cannot be held to be binding on the appellant. 31. Mr. Veera. Kathiravan, learned counsel for the first respondent next contended that the present Committee of Management is only an ad hoc Committee, elected more than a decade ago and that since there were no elections for the past more than 15 years, their continuance in office itself is illegal and that therefore they have no right to decide the question of admission of members. The learned counsel also contended that the present ad hoc Committee continues in office only by virtue of a small reprieve granted by this Court in the earliest writ petition W.P. No. 7307 of 1998 and that since the present ad hoc Committee was permitted by the order passed in the next writ petition W.P. No. 15787 of 2000, just to remain in charge for day-to-day administration, the appellant has no power to admit members. 32. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the first respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (2006) 6 SCC 127, and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in (2006) 1 MLJ 1 : (2006) 1 CTC 1 . 33. Even at the outset, the above contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent, does not merit any consideration, for the following reasons: (a) The first respondent is not yet a member of the Wakf. 33. Even at the outset, the above contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent, does not merit any consideration, for the following reasons: (a) The first respondent is not yet a member of the Wakf. He is only aspiring to become a member and hence, as on date, he has no locus standi to question the authority of the present Committee of Management, to admit members. (b) Once a duly elected Committee is in Office, they have every right to manage and administer the affairs of the Wakf, in accordance with its bye-laws, till the Committee is superseded or a new Committee is elected. The functioning of a Society or Wakf, cannot be allowed to remain in vacuum, on the ground that the term of office of the elected members expired long ago. (c) The phrase "day-to-day administration" would certainly mean and include the admission and removal of members. Therefore, by virtue of the earlier order of this Court, the appellant has the right to admit members. (d) in Jt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala v. T.A. Kuttappan and Others (supra), which was followed by the Full Bench in K. Nithiyanantham v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) it was held that an Administrator, appointed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in supersession of the Committee of Management, would not be entitled to enroll new members and that the function of enrolling new members could be carried out only by an elected Committee of Management. The law laid down in these cases actually support the case of the appellant more than the case of the first respondent, for the simple reason that the Committee of Management, which is now in charge, is the duly elected Committee. The present Committee is not a Committee appointed either by the Register or by the Wakf Board. The fact that this Committee is in office for more than a decade, without elections being held, is no ground to hold that this Committee has forfeited its rights under the bye-laws. The orders passed in the previous writ petitions and writ appeal, were aimed at ensuring a free and fair election to the Wakf. For achieving this purpose, the task of preparation of the electoral roll was also handed over to the Wakf Board. The orders passed in the previous writ petitions and writ appeal, were aimed at ensuring a free and fair election to the Wakf. For achieving this purpose, the task of preparation of the electoral roll was also handed over to the Wakf Board. This cannot be extended any further, so as to divest the power of the Committee to enroll members and to confer such powers upon the Wakf Board itself. 34. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed in part and the order of the learned Judge dated 21.4.2009 in W.P. (MD) No. 2550 of 2009 is modified to the following effect: (a) The directions contained in paragraph-9(ii) to 9(ix) are set aside. (b) The existing ad hoc Committee of Management shall scrutinize all the applications for admission to the membership of the Wakf and take a decision with regard to the admission of each one of those applicants, within a period of two weeks. (c) Within a week of taking such a decision, the existing ad hoc Committee shall forward to the Wakf Board, (1) the list of persons whom they wish to admit and (2) the list of persons, who, according to the Committee, are not eligible to become members. (d) The decision of the ad hoc Committee shall also be communicated to the individuals, who are considered to be ineligible to become members. Apart from individual communications to those whose Applications are rejected, the Committee shall also forward a list of such persons to the office of the Wakf Superintendent, Tirunelveli, who shall have the list displayed in the notice board of his office. (e) Persons who are considered by the ad hoc Committee to be ineligible, may seek appropriate remedies, in terms of the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, either before the Chief Executive Officer or before the Wakf Board or before the Wakf Tribunal, as the case may be. (f) Within two weeks of receipt of the list of eligible members and the list of ineligible members, the Wakf Board shall prepare the electoral roll and then prepare and issue an election schedule and conduct the elections, within a further period of two months. (f) Within two weeks of receipt of the list of eligible members and the list of ineligible members, the Wakf Board shall prepare the electoral roll and then prepare and issue an election schedule and conduct the elections, within a further period of two months. This election process need not await the outcome of any remedy sought for by those persons whose Applications for membership are rejected, since that process may take a long time, resulting in the postponement of the elections and the present Committee continuing endlessly. 35. The writ appeal is disposed of on the above lines. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Appeal disposed of.