cra38.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2011 Tanzim us Salat Committee .. APPLICANT VERSUS Tayyab Yousuf Mulla & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S. Kazi, advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.N. Ansari, advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. M.G. Mustafa, advocate for respondent no. 2. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3 rd MAY, 2011. PER COURT : 1 An application was tendered by respondent no. 1 under section 40 of the Wakf Act, 1995, to the Chief Executive Officer, requesting him to declare the disputed property as the property belonging to the Wakf. The application tendered by respondent was allowed in view of the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer on 22-5-2009. Applicant herein challenged the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer by filing Wakf Appeal no. 3/2009 which came to be heard and disposed of by the cra38.11 2 Presiding Officer, Marathwada Wakf Tribunal, Aurnagabad on 19-1-2011. Appeal presented by the applicant herein came to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Chief Executive Officer is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Chief Executive Officer for rendering fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Wakf tribunal while passing the order has recorded that the Wakf is registered as a trust under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act and as such, notice to the Charity Commissioner was mandatory in view of provisions of section 40 the Act. In the instant matter, as no notice was issued to the Charity Commissioner, the decision rendered by the Chief Executive Officer is vitiated. 2 Appellate order passed by the Wakf tribunal is in favour of the revision applicant. I see no reason for the revision applicant to approach this court. It is the contention of the revision applicant that infact the Chief Executive Officer does not have jurisdiction to deal with the issue. It would be open for the revision applicant to raise appropriate contention including the question relating to jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer and it would be obligatory for the Chief Executive Officer to deal with all the objections cra38.11 3 raised in the proceeding before him. So far as the instant revision application is concerned, the same being devoid of substance is liable to be rejected. Civil revision application stands rejected. 3 Pending civil application, if any , does not survive and stands disposed of. 4 Parties agree to appear before the Chief Executive Officer on 23 rd May, 2011. As such, no separate notice requiring their presence before the Chief Executive Officer would be necessary. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb