ladda 1 wp-8301-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8301 OF 2010 Sayyad Sajid Hussaini s/o Sayyed Sajjad Hussaini Chisti Jagirdar ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents. Mr S.S. Kazi, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr V.S. Gokhale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. Dated : 21st July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The petition is directed against the order dated 13th August, 2010 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the application of the petitioner dated 3rd July, 2010 came to be rejected on the ground that the issue is pending before the Apex Court and necessary orders in this regard need to be obtained by the petitioner from the Apex Court. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Dargah in question is a 600 years old Dargah and has an historical importance. It is contended that some ladda 2 wp-8301-10 part of the said Dargah is in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, the application dated 6th July, 2010 was made by the petitioner to the Collector, Sholapur to take appropriate steps to repair the dilapidated portion of the Dargah which was rejected by the Collector vide the impugned order dated 13th August, 2010. Hence, present petition. 2. The following facts are not in dispute :- 3. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, by order dated 16.12.1972 in a Suo Moto Inquiry has held that the suit trust was composite trust and directed that the Trust shall be registered in the name of Shri Shiddappa alias Khaja Maqdoom Alluddin alias Anant Chaitnya and Shaikh Sikander Chisti and Shaikh Naseeruddin Chisti. 4. The aggrieved person preferred the First Appeal No. 318 of 1979 before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2008 has observed thus:- “The First Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Assistant Judge, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in Suo Moto Enquiry No.3/3236/1952 are quashed and set aside. Accordingly, application made by the first respondent for registration under the said Act of 1950 stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs”. ladda 3 wp-8301-10 5. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Respondent No. 7 i.e. Hirabai Shivaya Swami has filed proceedings in the Apex Court against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which are pending. It is not in dispute that the Apex Court on 25th November, 2008 passed the following order in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) which reads thus:- “Delay condoned. Leave granted. Mr Shakil Ahmed Syed, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1. It is stated at the Bar that Respondent No.2 is dead. Mr Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that appropriate application in this behalf shall be filed within four weeks. The order of stay granted by the High Court shall continue until further orders.” 6. It is not in dispute that the Assistant Superintendent of Police District Sholapur by order passed under Section 39 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 directed the closure of the Shrine and took the possession of the Shrine and since then the shrine has been in possession of the Collector. 7. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident ladda 4 wp-8301-10 that the issue about the Dargah / Shrine in question is pending before the Apex Court and, therefore, the application made by the petitioner dated 3rd July, 2010 in our view has rightly been rejected by the Collector vide impugned order dated 13th August, 2010 at this stage. It is also necessary to keep in mind that the Apex Court vide order dated 25th November, 2008 has continued the order of stay granted by this Court until further orders. Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that whether this interim order is either modified or revoked by the Apex Court. In the circumstances, it will not be possible to entertain the request of the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)