1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1463/2010. Syed Azizul Hason and others -: versus :- Mah. State Board of Wakfs and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MAY 03, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri F.T. Mirza, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri M.K. Pathan, learned counsel for respondent no.3. This Court has on 02.02.2010 directed respondent no.2 Chief Executive Officer to decide application for vacation of interim orders by 15.03.2010. The impugned order dated 10.03.2010 is passed in obedience of that directions. Contention of Shri Saboo, learned counsel for petitioners is, fact that earlier an election program was already published and it was prosecuted till 30.12.2009; that respondent no.3 President participated in that election program, are the cardinal aspects which are conveniently ignored by respondent no.2 while directing to hold fresh meeting to conduct the elections. He states 2 that a meeting for said purpose was already held and election program is also prepared and that election program has to proceed further in accordance with law. Shri Pathan, learned counsel for respondent no.3 President and Shri Mirza, learned counsel for respondent no.1 state that respondent no.2 has applied mind and has found that to avoid any further controversy and to see that the elections are held immediately, fresh holding of meeting was essential and hence in exercise of powers under Section 25, the directions have been issued. I have perused the impugned order dated 10.03.2010. Said order ignores the meeting dated 20.12.2009 and the contention of present petitioner on the basis of that meeting. If respondent no.3 President has acquiesced in those proceedings by participating in election program prepared and published in pursuance of that meeting by respondent no.4, the complexion of challenge before respondent no.2 will definitely undergo a vital change. However, respondent no.2 has not recorded any finding in that respect and has thus defeated the meeting dated 20.12.2009. This omission of respondent no.2 to consider that meeting or implications arising therefrom cannot be accepted. This Court had directed respondent no.2 to decide the application for vacation of interim relief moved by present petitioners and in that application the stand of participation by respondent no.3 in election process is very much there. The stand therefore could not have been avoided by respondent no.2. In this situation it is apparent that the 3 impugned order cannot be sustained. Respondent no.2 shall reconsider the entire issue in the light of the alleged participation by respondent no.3 in the election process and pass further appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with the law. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Parties to appear before respondent no.2 on 17.05.2010 and to abide by his further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.