1 cra499.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Revision Application No. 499 of 2010 Iliyas Hanif Qureshi & ors. ... Petitioners v/s. Ishaque Gulam Nabi Narvel & ors. ... Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the petitioners. Mr. Y.H. Muchhala, sr. advocate with Sagheer A. Khan, Jaaved Patel and Vaibhav Nagvekar i/b. Judicature Law Associates for respondents 1-8. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 05, 2011. P.C. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard. By consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 26th July, 2010 vide which the learned Presiding Officer Maharashtra State 2 cra499.10.sxw WAKF Tribunal, Aurangabad has allowed the application filed by the respondents 1-8 herein. 4. It appears that there is a dispute regarding the management of one trust namely Tembi Masjid, Thane. Vide the order dated 16th April, 2009 the respondent no. 10 had directed the respondents in Case No. 42/08/2008 to appoint a legal expert (Advocate) for holding the elections of the said trust. The said election was to be held by taking subscription of Rs. 100/- from the residents residing in their locality and they were to form electoral roll. It appears that on the basis of the said direction both the groups held elections. As a consequence thereof, vide order dated 22nd May, 2009, the respondent no. 10 directed the fresh elections to be held under the supervision of Regional Wakf Officer, Mumbai. Accordingly, this programme was also published. Being aggrieved thereby respondents 1-8 approached the learned Tribunal. It appears that in the meantime vide order dated 3rd July, 2009 the respondent no. 10 had accepted the report of the Election Officer appointed in pursuance to the order dated 22nd May, 2009 and approved the election of the present petitioners. By the impugned order while allowing the application of the respondents 1-8, the learned Tribunal has set aside the election of the present petitioners as 3 cra499.10.sxw approved by the respondent no. 10 vide order dated 3rd July, 2009. Being aggrieved thereby the present petition. 5. I have heard Shri Warunjikar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Muchhala, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1-6 at considerable length. However, I do not find it necessary to go into the rival submissions, since I find that present petitioner deserves to be allowed on a short ground of procedural illegality committed by the learned Presiding Officer. 6. From the application filed by the respondents 1-8 dated 4th March, 2009, it could be seen that they had only challenged the order dated 22nd May, 2009 regarding directing an officer to held the elections and report of the Election Officer dated 31st May, 2009. From the perusal of the record, it would reveal that the report of the Election Officer has been accepted by the respondent no. 10 on 3rd July, 2009. There is no amendment to challenge the said order dated 3rd July, 2009. It could thus be seen that the respondent no. 10 in exercise of his powers under the provisions of Section 25 of the Wakf Act, 1995 has approved the elections of the present petitioners. In my considered view, in the absence of challenge to the said 4 cra499.10.sxw order, the election of the petitioners could not have been set aside. This is patently in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is difficult to understand as to how the Presiding Tribunal who is a Judicial Officer has committed such a glaring error. In that view of the matter, I find that impugned order is not sustainable on the short ground. 7. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 8. Application No. 29/09 of respondents 1-8 is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for considering afresh. If the respondents 1-8 so desire, they may be granted liberty to amend their application so as to incorporate challenge to the order passed by the respondent no. 10 dated 3rd July, 2009. If such a challenge is permitted to be incorporated, the present petitioners would be permitted to file additional written-statement or amend their pleadings so as to meet the said challenge. The learned Tribunal shall decide the application on remand within a period of three months from today. It is needless to state that this Court has not considered the matter from its merits and the impugned order is being set aside only on the ground that it is found that said order does not conform to the procedural requirements. 5 cra499.10.sxw 9. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. (B.R. GAVAI, J)