Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1669 (ALL)

Abrar Husain v. U. P. Waqf Tribunal

2017-07-17

MAHENDRA DAYAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. 1. Both the aforesaid civil revisions arise out of the same order dated 05.06.2017, but passed in different cases. Since, the question of law involved in both the revisions is same, therefore, both the revisions are taken up together and are being decided by a common order. Civil Revision No. 68 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 05.06.2017, passed by the Uttar Pradesh Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 35/2016, whereby the application moved on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 6, Rule 17 and section 151 CPC, for impleading Shia Central Board of Waqf as one of the defendant, has been allowed subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as cost. 2. Civil Revision No. 69 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 05.06.2017, passed by the Uttar Pradesh Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 1/2016, whereby the similar application for impleading Shia Central Board of Waqf as one of the defendant, has been allowed subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as cost. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists in both the revisions, has challenged the impugned orders passed by the Uttar Pradesh Waqf Tribunal on the ground that as per the provisions of the Waqf Act, the Waqf Tribunal consists of three members. The Tribunal can function only if all the members are present and the corum of the Tribunal is complete. Unless all the members are present and sign the order, the order is a nullity. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court dated 13.04.2017 passed in Civil Revision No. 96 of 2017, in which, this Hon'ble Court sitting at Allahabad has held that any order which has not been signed by all the members of the Tribunal, is void because of the full corum of the Tribunal. It has also been held that the order passed by only two members of the Tribunal, would be non-est. 5. It has also been held that the order passed by only two members of the Tribunal, would be non-est. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that if this Court is of the view that the order is defective for want of corum, the matter may be sent back to the Tribunal concerned for decision afresh in accordance with law and the law laid down by this Court in civil revision, referred to above. 6. In the result, both the aforesaid revisions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 05.06.2017, passed by Uttar Pradesh Waqf Tribunal are quashed with direction that the matter be considered afresh in accordance with law as observed in this order as well as in the order dated 13.04.2017, passed by this Court, sitting at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 96 of 2017.