1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 42. CRA/77/2009 (Smt.SHAMSUNNISA BEGAM w/o Syed Mushir Hussain V/S SYED HABIBUDDIN INAMDAR s/o Syed Shamshuddin) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Shri S.M.Godsay, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. M.C.Syed, Adv., for respondent no.1. Mr. H.I.Pathan, Adv., for respondent no.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:19/1/2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard respective Counsel. The order of learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, dt. 30.4.2009, whereby he set aside the order dt.10.7.2006, passed by respondent no.2, Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of Wakf, Aurangabad, is under criticism. 2. At this stage of the matter, it is apparent, the Chief 2 Executive Officer recalled his own order dt.21.2.2006 by directions dt.10.7.2006. He could not have recalled his order which was assailed before the learned Presiding Officer and, consequently, the learned Presiding Officer justifiably set aside the order of present respondent no.2. 3. The course upen to the present petitioner is to challenge the order dt.21.2.2006, recorded by the present respondent no.2 before the learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, in terms of Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1994. 4. In the fact situation, the order of Presiding Officer cannot be said to be illegal or demonstrating perversity. The course open to the present petitioner being displayed herein above, no merit in the present Civil Revision Application. It is dismissed. No costs. 3 Needless to add, if there is any delay, it will be duly considered by the learned Presiding Officer. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/77-09cra