ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. M. Mehdi Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 to 12, Mr. Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for respondent No.1/applicant and Mr. Mohammed Ismail, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 83(9) of Proviso of WAKF ACT of 1995 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A.No.71 of 2023, dated 05.02.2024, wherein, the said application filed by respondent No.1 herein to set aside the proceedings F.No.04/MDK/C/2007/Z-IV, dated 27.04.2023 issued by the CEO constituting the Managing Committee of the Wakf Institution Dargah Hzt. Fateh Khan (Rh) situated at Sanga Reddy Town i.e. respondent No.2 and revision petitioners herein, has been allowed setting aside the proceedings with a direction to conduct elections within three months from the date of the order. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred in the original application before the learned Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that Dargah Hzt. Fateh Khan (Rh) situated at Sanga Reddy District is a Wakf institution as per information published in Government Gazette No.48-A, dated 29.11.2001. Said Wakf institution which was under the care of the Management Committee and assumed into direct management of the Board. The Ex-President refused to hand over the charge of the Wakf institution to the Board. The Board vide Resolution No.990, dated 13.10.2020 has unanimously taken the Wakf institution under the direct management. The management was taken over from Managing Committee Board headed by Alhaj Ghulam Samdani under the proceedings i.e. F.No.04/MDK/C/ 2007/Z-IV, dated 27.04.2023. It is alleged that vide the said proceedings, the respondent No.1 Board acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner. 5. Regulation 5 of the Managing Committee (constitution) Regulations 2009 contemplates that a Managing Committee may be constituted by approving the panel unanimously selected by Musallies and certified by the Inspector Auditor of the Board, alternatively, through election from among the Musallies of the Wakf Institution under the control and supervision of Inspector Auditor of the Board. The respondent No.1 ignored suggestion of the Inspector Auditor for approving the panel constituting the Managing Committee and indulged in violation of regulations framed for the purpose of constitution of Managing Committee. The respondent No.1 ignored suggestion of the Inspector Auditor for approving the panel constituting the Managing Committee and indulged in violation of regulations framed for the purpose of constitution of Managing Committee. Some of the members of the Managing Committee constituted by the Board are tenants of Wakf institution who attract disqualification as per Regulation 9 of Constitution of Managing Committee Regulations i.e. Managing Committee is constituted with members who are not eligible. It is pleaded that there is abuse of power while passing the proceeding and therefore, said proceeding was sought to be set aside, by filing the Original Application. 6. In said Original Application, notice was issued to the respondents and the matter was contested by respondent Nos.1 to 8, 10 and 11. Upon considering the case of both the parties, the Wakf Tribunal allowed the Original Application and set aside the proceeding in F.No.04-MDK/C/2017/Z, dated 27.04.2023 and directed the respondent No.1 Board to conduct elections within three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 7. In grounds of revision, respondent Nos.2 to 12 it is pleaded that Wakf Board is not a party to the Original Application but only the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is made as a party. The resolution taken by the Board with 2/3 rd majority is to be implemented by the CEO who is under the administrative control of the Board. Since the Board is not arrayed as a party, the Original Application is bad for mis- joinder of parties under Order 1, Rule 9 of CPC. Further, the records of the Wakf Board were not called for passing the impugned order. The Wakf Board took a decision for constitution of committee by passing resolution No.242, dated 06.04.2023 and therefore, Wakf Board is a necessary party as per Section 23(3) and Section 26 of WAKF ACT , 1995. There cannot be elections to the Dargah for constitution of Managing Committee as there were huge number of devotees from different parts of the State and Country and it is not possible to conduct elections though regulations permit the same. This fact was not considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order directing the Board to conduct elections within three months. Further, the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the constitution of Managing Committee as there is failure to explain the same and said aspect was not considered. This fact was not considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order directing the Board to conduct elections within three months. Further, the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the constitution of Managing Committee as there is failure to explain the same and said aspect was not considered. 8. There is an erroneous conclusion by the Tribunal that there are no circumstances prevailing for constitution of Managing Committee by the Wakf Board when constitution of Committees by the Wakf Board in similar circumstances in earlier instances were never challenged. There is violation on the part of the Tribunal to consider the discretionary power vested in the Wakf Board under Regulation 23 of Managing Committee and said power was exercised while constituting the Managing Committee. Earlier Committees constituted vide proceedings dated 18.04.2016 and 14.09.2018 and proceedings of CEO dated 11.11.2020 were not challenged. The present proceeding dated 27.04.2023 is challenged in Original Application with a malafide intention. There is an erroneous interpretation of the report of the Inspector Auditor to the effect that the Board has to take necessary action and by exercising discretionary power, the Board constituted the Managing Committee of the respondent Nos.2 to 12. There is wrong application of judgment reported in 2023 (5) ALD 811 TS which was passed in a Writ Appeal No.878 of 2023 when facts of said case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the aforementioned, the impugned order sought to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 12/revision petitioners submitted that there is a glaring error in the manner of filing of the Original Application as Telangana Wakf Board was not made as a party though the proceeding of said Board was impugned in the Original Application. It is urged that without the Wakf Board being a party to the proceedings, the Original Application is not maintainable. Further, the CEO of the Board is made as a party and said party is under the control of the Board for implementation of the resolutions passed by the Board. The CEO has no independent role in passing the resolutions or constituting the Committees. Therefore, arraying the CEO as a party to the Original Application amounts to mis-joinder of party. On the aforementioned grounds itself, the Original Applicable is not maintainable. The CEO has no independent role in passing the resolutions or constituting the Committees. Therefore, arraying the CEO as a party to the Original Application amounts to mis-joinder of party. On the aforementioned grounds itself, the Original Applicable is not maintainable. Further, the locus standi of the applicant to file the Original Application is questioned alleging that there is no description about the ground for the applicant to challenge the proceeding issued by the Board. 10. Referring to the order of the Tribunal, it is represented that the directions of the Tribunal to conduct elections cannot be implemented as it is difficult to identify the Zaireens/ devotees of the Dargah etc. from the local inhabitants and there is a chance to breach the peace in the vicinity, in case of conducting the elections. Further, the Board has constituted Managing Committees vide proceedings dated 18.04.2016, 14.09.2018 and 11.11.2020. However, in such instances, no challenge was posed by the applicant or any other member. Only when present Managing Committee was constituted, to harass the members and to prevent them from functioning smoothly, the Original Application is filed. Therefore, it is urged that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 11. The learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 Chief Executive Officer supported the arguments of respondent Nos.2 to 12. 12. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Telangana State Wakf Board is represented by respondent No.1 Chief Executive Officer and therefore, there is no issue of either non-joinder of parties or mis-joinder of parties. Further, it is contended that in violation of the Regulation 5 of the Managing Committee (constitution) Regulations 2009 and in violation of the report of the Inspector Auditor, the Board has arbitrarily constituted the Managing Committee when there are two more panels aspiring to be appointed as the Managing Committee. It is argued that no opportunity was given to the remaining panels for being constituted as Managing committee on account of Board taking direct management and passing orders for constituting a new Managing Committee. Further, it is argued that some of the members are tenants of the shops run within the premises of Dargah and therefore, they are disqualified from being appointed as members of the Managing Committee. In view of the above infirmities, the Tribunal has passed an appropriate order setting aside the proceedings dated 27.04.2023. 13. Further, it is argued that some of the members are tenants of the shops run within the premises of Dargah and therefore, they are disqualified from being appointed as members of the Managing Committee. In view of the above infirmities, the Tribunal has passed an appropriate order setting aside the proceedings dated 27.04.2023. 13. Firstly, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 12/revision petitioners raised question about the maintainability of the original application without making the Wakf Board as a necessary party when the proceedings issued by the Wakf Board is impugned before the Tribunal. The Chief Executive Officer of the Board is a person who acts under the directions and supervision of the Board with no independent authority to make any decision. The CEO’s role is limited to the extent of implementing decisions taken by the Board. In view of this fact situation, it is submitted that the original application is bad for mis-joinder of parties as there is no need for the CEO being made a party and the Board is a necessary party. On this aspect, when this Court questioned the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 12 about whether or not he represents the Board, the categorical answer was that he acts only at the behest of the Board i.e. he has filed counter before the Tribunal with the approval of the Board and is also currently contesting before this Court only at the behest of the Board. The learned counsel represented that the CEO is a representative of the Board and therefore, there is no issue about non-representation of the Board. Since the CEO is representing the Board, this Court is inclined to accept the version of the respondent Nos.2 to 12 that the Board is sufficiently represented by the CEO and there is no issue about the mis-joinder or non-joinder of all parties. 14. The facts of the case as narrated by both the parties show that Dargah Hzt. Fateh Khan (RH) is a Wakf institution as per Government Gazette No.48-A, dated 29.11.2001. The Wakf institutions include i) Mosque, ii) Ashoorkhana, iii) Alawajaat/ Ashoorkhana/Bargah, iv) Chilla/Sarai/Chilla Nishan, v) Dargah, vi) Ikamath Khana (Hostel), vii) Idgah, viii) Khaberstan includes Takia, ix) Maqbera, x) Musafir Khana, xi) Nabi Khana Imambara, etc. The aforementioned list includes Dargah which is subject matter of the present dispute. The Wakf institutions include i) Mosque, ii) Ashoorkhana, iii) Alawajaat/ Ashoorkhana/Bargah, iv) Chilla/Sarai/Chilla Nishan, v) Dargah, vi) Ikamath Khana (Hostel), vii) Idgah, viii) Khaberstan includes Takia, ix) Maqbera, x) Musafir Khana, xi) Nabi Khana Imambara, etc. The aforementioned list includes Dargah which is subject matter of the present dispute. No doubt, vide proceedings dated 18.04.2016 and 14.09.2018, Managing Committees were constituted by the Telangana Wakf Board through direct management and said proceedings were never challenged by any party. It is not known whether said Committees constituted were unanimous or there were proposals by other committees and therefore, the appropriateness or validity of the said proceedings cannot be examined herein. 15. Currently, the validity of the proceeding dated 27.04.2023 is in question before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has perused the report of the Inspector Auditor dated 19.09.2020 which shows that there were four panels requesting them to be constituted as Managing Committee of Dargah Hazt Fateh Khan Saheb (Rh). Since there were four panels aspiring to be constituted as Managing Committee, the Inspector Auditor proposed conduct of elections as per G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 20.11.2009. Further, the Tribunal has noted that there is issue about tenants being some of the members of the Managing Committee which is impermissible as per Regulation 9 of the Managing committee (Constitution) Regulations. The Wakf Board has deliberately chosen to distinguish G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 20.11.2009 as applicable only to Masjids whereas the said G.O is applicable to ‘Wakf institutions and properties’. 16. The subject matter of the present dispute is Dargah Hazt Fateh Khan Saheb (Rh) which is a Wakf institution. Therefore, the G.O.Ms.No.74 is applicable to the present Wakf institution i.e. Dargah. Only for the purpose of circumventing the report of the Inspector Auditor, a fictitious distinction is created between Masjid and Dargah though both of them come under the Wakf institutions and the Board has constituted the present Managing Committee vide proceeding dated 27.04.2023. The Tribunal has given a specific finding that when there is only one panel applying for constitution of the Managing Committee, the Board can unanimously proceed to appoint the same. However, when there are more than one application from different panels for constitution of Managing Committee i.e. when there is no unanimous panel, the only option available is to conduct elections. The Board cannot shirk its responsibility to conduct elections on the ground of practicability of the process of conducting elections. 17. However, when there are more than one application from different panels for constitution of Managing Committee i.e. when there is no unanimous panel, the only option available is to conduct elections. The Board cannot shirk its responsibility to conduct elections on the ground of practicability of the process of conducting elections. 17. The G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 20.11.2009 proposes to conduct elections for Wakf institutions whenever it is necessary. Therefore, the Wakf board has the responsibility to design and streamline process for conducting elections rather than shirking the same on the imagined ground of difficulty in identifying the Ziareens/devotees of Dargah. Further, when a complaint is made that some of the members are tenants running shops in the premises of Dargah, said issue has to be taken up by the Board seriously to ascertain whether there is violation of Regulation 9 of the Managing Committee (Constitution) Regulations, in constituting the Managing Committee. No purpose will be served by brushing aside the allegations without coming up with concrete evidence to support their own stand. 18. The Board represented by CEO in the absence of concrete evidence of non-violation of Regulation 9 of the Managing Committee (Constitution) Regulations and non- applicability of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 20.11.2009 cannot support the constitution of Managing Committee without elections. Therefore, this Court does not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order passed in O.A.No.71 of 2023, dated 05.02.2024 by the learned Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.