{1} cra14810.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.148 OF 2010 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd., Aurangabad, through its Executive Engineer, having office at Mill Corner, Aurangabad. Petitioner Versus 1 The Chief Executive Officer, } Name of R.No.1 Maharashtra State Wakf Board, } deleted vide having office at Panchakki, } Court’s order Aurangabad. } dated 27.04.2011 2 Sayyed Viquardoddin alias Abed Pasha, Sayadduddin Quadri Inamdar, age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o Behind Hotel Wonder Palance Jubli Park, Kotwalpura, Aurangabad.Respondent Respondent Mr.P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel holding for Mr.S.M.Godsay, advocate for the petitioner. Name of Respondent No.1 deleted vide Court’s order dated 27.04.2011. Mr.A.N.Kakade, advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 27 th April, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 On the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, name of Respondent No.1shall stand deleted. {2} cra14810.odt 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 3 An application tendered by the petitioner – Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., claiming condonation of delay occurred in presenting appeal to the Wakf Tribunal, came to be rejected. As such, the petitioner-Company has approached this Court. 4 Respondent No.2, who claims to be Mutawalli of Dargah Hazrat Tajuddin Hamvi, presented an application to the Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Wakf Board, under Section 40 of the Wakf Act, claiming a declaration that the disputed property out of S.No.104 – CTS No.2589, comprises of an area admeasuring about 5 acres 10 gunthas. Offices of petitioner- Company are situate thereon and the petitioner is stated to be in possession of the said property since number of years. It is not necessary to go into factual details of the matter, suffice it to say that the application tendered by Respondent No.2 under Section 40 of the Wakf Act was allowed by the Chief Executive Officer. Petitioner-Company presented an appeal raising challenge to the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer. However, there was delay of about five years and one month in presenting the appeal. As such, an application came to be presented seeking condonation of delay. {3} cra14810.odt 5 After hearing both the parties, learned Presiding Officer of the Wakf Tribunal was not convinced as regards explanation tendered by the petitioner-Company as regards occurrence of the delay. The Wakf Tribunal, as such, proceeded to reject the application for condonation of delay. 6 It is urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner-Company that the dispute relates to valuable immovable property and offices of the petitioner-Company are situate at the disputed site and the Company is possessed of the property since number of years. It is also contended that the petitioner-Company has very good case on merits and it is desirable that the appeal be dealt with on merits. Considering nature of litigation as well as the stakes involved, it is appropriate that effort shall be made to decide the dispute considering merits of the contentions. It is also urged by the petitioner that the appeal shall not be allowed to be thrown out merely for technical reason of delay. 7 I have perused the order passed by the Tribunal. There are lapses on the part of the petitioner-Company and the Company was in fact not diligent in prosecuting the litigation. However, considering the stakes involved and considering nature of the litigation, I am of the opinion that the petitioner needs to be given an opportunity to put up the matter before the appellate {4} cra14810.odt authority and the appeal shall be dealt with considering merits of the contentions of rival parties. This Court normally takes liberal approach in the matters concerning condonation of delay. The ends of justice would be met if the inconvenience caused to Respondent No.2 in prosecuting the litigation for number of years is compensated by imposing heavy costs on the petitioner. 8 I have also heard arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. Shri Kakade, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 fairly concedes, on instructions from his client, that the matter can be transmitted to the appellate authority for rendering decision on merits and delay can be condoned by directing the petitioner to pay substantial amount of costs to Respondent No.2. 9 Considering contentions raised by the parties, I deem it appropriate to allow the Revision Application and set aside the order dated 24.06.2010, passed by the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Misc. Application No.01 of 2010. The application tendered by the petitioner-Company claiming condonation of delay shall be deemed to have been allowed and the Wakf Tribunal shall decide the appeal on its own merits, after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty thousand) towards costs to Respondent No.2 within a period of six weeks from today. The {5} cra14810.odt amount of costs shall be deposited with the Wakf Tribunal, which shall be permitted to be withdrawn by Respondent No.2 or may be paid directly to Respondent No.2. The payment of costs, as directed, is condition precedent for consideration of appeal by the Wakf Tribunal. 10 Rule is accordingly made absolute. The Wakf Tribunal shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably by the end of year-2011. Pending Civil Application does not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. R.M.BORDE JUDGE ******* adb/cra14810