IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1678 of 2008 ASHRAF BEGUM & ORS Versus BIBI PRAWEEN & ORS ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Farooque Moazzan, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, G.A.2 Mr. U.B.Singh, J.C. to G.A.2. ------------ 3 23/10/2008 Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court there must be an end of the vascilliating stand of the petitioner. Earlier when a specific stand was taken by counsel for the petitioners in the light of averments made in paragraph no. 14 of this Civil Revision Application that no such WAKF tribunal had been constituted by the State Government, this Court had adjourned the matter directing the State of Bihar to clarify this position. After some time counsel for the State had came out with a clear instruction that the Wakf tribunal has already been constituted and in fact same is also functional wherein a Presiding Officer has also been appointed. Normally that should have been the end of the matter in view of earlier order of this Court dated 1.10.2008 passed in this very case. Mr. Farooque Moazzam, 2 counsel for the petitioners would however contend that Section 85 A of the Wakf Act, 1995 would still not allow this case to be transferred to the wakf Tribunal. He is also of the view that as on an earlier occasion the same issue had been decided by the court below by order dated 3.10.2002 holding that this case could not be transferred to the Tribunal and as such the impugned order taking a contrary view apparently is jurisdictional error. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 3.10.2002 also only talks of functioning of the Tribunal and in fact at that point of time as the Tribunal had not been constituted the suit was not sought to be transferred. That apart, the interpretation of Md. Farooque Moazzan of section 85 A of the Act is itself not acceptable to this Court, in as much as, the word ‘and’ has been used between expression “date of constitution of the Tribunal under the Act" and "after the date commencement of the Act" cannot and does not mean that only such cases have to be transferred which were filed after 3 commencement of the Act. The intention of the Legislature is thus very clear that any and every proceedings which were pending on the date of commencement of the Act would stand transferred to the Tribunal after its constitution and made functional. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar