JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. 1. The present petition is directed against the interim order dated 25.04.2025 of the Wakf Tribunal in I.A. No.515 of 2024 in pending W.O.A. No.52 of 2024 preferred against the interim order of the Wakf Board dated 08.05.2024 in O.P. No.88 of 2023. The petitioner Jama-ath is a bifurcated Jama-ath and application for registration is pending adjudication before the Wakf Board. The term was over in 2019, however, after waiting for two(2) years, the member of the Jam-ath had filed O.P.No.88 of 2023 before the Wakf Board for holding of the audit as well as election of the bifurcated Jama-ath namely Mundakkayam Varikkani Muslim Jama-ath. During the pendency of the aforementioned petition, an I.A. was filed for appointment of the returning officer. The said application was allowed vide order dated 08.05.2024 whereby Adv.Muhammed Puzhakkara was appointed as returning officer for conducting the election to the aforementioned Jama-ath through a secret ballot system. He was directed to prepare a voters list and comply with the procedural formalities with a further direction to handover the charge to the newly elected committee within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of the order dated 08.05.2024. The aforementioned order also directed the Divisional Officer, Kottayam, to take the prosecution steps against the Jama-ath committee in case of their failure to pay the audit fee which was already directed to be paid within a period one(1) month. 2. The contention of the ex-members of the Jama-ath was that the returning officer while issuing notification on 21.07.2024 had not included the name of the voters who had attained the age of eighteen(18) years and eligible to caste their votes and in this connection, preferred W.O.A. No.52 of 2024 with an interim prayer. During the pendency of the aforementioned interim application, the matter reached this Court vide O.P. (Wakf) No.8 of 2025 on the premise that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was on leave. In this view of the matter, this Court vide judgment dated 11.04.2025 disposed of the aforementioned O.P. by issuing the following directions: 8. However looking at Ext.P4 history of the case hearing, it is a fact that the matter is being deferred for the purpose of admission before the Tribunal and there is no adjudication on I.A.No.515/2024, which was listed for arguments on 18.03.2025. 9. However looking at Ext.P4 history of the case hearing, it is a fact that the matter is being deferred for the purpose of admission before the Tribunal and there is no adjudication on I.A.No.515/2024, which was listed for arguments on 18.03.2025. 9. In this view of the matter, we, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter, dispose of the present OP (Waqf) by directing the Tribunal to decide I.A. No.515/2024 by 16.04.2025, the interim application seeking further stay of the order of the Wakf Board appointing the Returning Officer and the subsequent act of notification. 10. At this stage, we have been informed that the Presiding Officer of the Waqf Tribunal is on leave till 21.04.2025. In this view of the matter, we have no other choice, but to stay the ensuing election scheduled for 20.04.2025 with a direction to the Returning Officer to issue a fresh notification after the outcome of I.A. No.515/2024, which shall be decided only after the Presiding Officer joins, as expeditiously as possible, within one month thereafter. Petition stands disposed off." The aforementioned directions clearly directed the returning officer to issue a fresh notification after the outcome of I.A. No.515 of 2024. 3. It is a matter of record that against the original notification dated 21.07.2024 an objection was filed for not including the voters which was decided by the returning officer and the members in the draft voters list was shown as 379 whereas in the final voter list of 25.04.2025, it was shown to be 402. The aforementioned interim application No.515 of 2024 in pending W.O.A. No.52 of 2024 came to be decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.04.2025 against the petitioner on the ground that all the formalities have been complied with by the returning officer and nothing is left in the objections, which was a ploy to extend the supervisory control of the Wakf beyond the expiry of the period. It is a matter of record that in tandem with the directions of this Court vide judgment dated 11.04.2025, returning officer vide Ext.P4 dated 07.05.2025 issued a notification holding the elections for 01.06.2025. The interim order dated 25.04.2025 has been challenged in this Court and this Court vide order dated 13.05.2025 issued notice and interim direction to the effect that issuance of election notification dated 07.05.2025 would be subject to the further orders passed by this Court. The interim order dated 25.04.2025 has been challenged in this Court and this Court vide order dated 13.05.2025 issued notice and interim direction to the effect that issuance of election notification dated 07.05.2025 would be subject to the further orders passed by this Court. 4. Sri. E.S. Ashraf along with Adv. C. Sheeba, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the returning officer has not taken in to consideration the objections in letter and spirit, only there is a partial adjudication and this fact has totally not been discussed in the order under challenge i.e. the preparation/promulgation of final voters list dated 05.04.2025, therefore there is an abdication. 5. On the other hand, Sri. Abdul Jabbar, learned counsel for the original petitioner in O.P. No.88 of 2023, Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz for Wakf Board and Sri. Muhammed Puzhakkara, returning officer who is present in Court submitted that there has been sincere compliance of the order of this Court dated 11.04.2025, the fresh notification has been issued on 07.05.2025 and there is no challenge to the final voters list dated 05.04.2025 and this is an attempt to procrastinate the issue of elections by adopting all dilated tactics and prays for dismissal of the petition with exemplary cost. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 7. No doubt, in the originally drafted voters list, the members eligible for casting the vote of Jama-ath was shown to be 379. The pith and substance of the objection on behalf of the petitioner reveals that certain persons who had attained the age of eighteen years(18) and eligible for casting vote were not included. The aforementioned issue had already been addressed by the returning officer while promulgating the final voter list dated 05.04.2025 wherein the number has been increased, which has been reflected in the notification dated 07.05.2025 Ext.P4. From the tenor and mode of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the petitioners - the applicants before the pending W.O.A. did not raise the issue with regard to the preparation of final voters list dated 05.04.2025 as the order under challenge is of subsequent date ie., 25.04.2025, thus had acquiesced to the preparation of the list and therefore, filing of the petition is wholly farcical exercise. We are of the view that such a dilatory tactics on behalf of the petitioners cannot be permitted to be perpetuated while exercising the power of judicial review. 8. Petition is bereft of the merits, accordingly dismissed.