Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) Both the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the same writ petitioners being aggrieved by the judgement and decree in appeal, being Appeal No. 14 of 2002 and Suit No. 03 of 2002 delivered respectively by the Auqaf Tribunal on the same day i.e., on April 10, 2016. Since both the writ petitions are lying pending from 2006, the writ petitions have come up in the list for hearing on the point of maintainability at the instance of the private respondents.
(2.) Be it mentioned that after concluding hearing on the point of maintainability and recording appropriate order thereafter, since subject to holding the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India maintainable, both the writ petitions may be heard simultaneously, that is why both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing on the point of maintainability since parties and the learned Counsels for the parties are the same except learned Counsel representing the Auqaf Board.
(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that the judgment under reference passed by the Auqaf Tribunal has been assailed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Submitted, since the Auqaf Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal and the suit within the provisions of the Wakf Act, and since there was no statutory violation, or, no violation of the fundamental rights in adjudicating those appeal and suit by the Tribunal, and since no appeal lies under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 against said judgment or order of Tribunal, and had there been any grievance of the writ petitioners remedy could have been lying in the garb of revision i.e., under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is liable to be dismissed since the writ is not maintainable. Mr. Chatterjee in support of his contention relied upon paragraphs 15 to 20 of the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 .;