SCA/10658/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10658 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SAIYED MAHEMUDMIYA AHEMADMIYA - Petitioner(s) Versus GUJARAT STATE WAKF BOARD & 10 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR YN RAVANI for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, MRS NASRIN N SHAIKH for Respondent(s) : 2 - 11. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 02/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate for the SCA/10658/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT petitioner and Shri L.R. Pathan, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Nasarin N. Shaikh, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 11. 2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-original appellant has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and / or order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch dated 31.7.2008 passed below Exh. 1 in Condonation Application No. 83 of 2007 in rejecting the said application and not condoning the delay of 219 days in preferring the appeal challenging the order passed by the Wakf Board. 3. It appears that there was delay in preferring the appeal against the permission granted by the Wakf Board, petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act or the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch that there was a delay in preferring the appeal the petitioner-appellant submitted the delay condonation application No. 83 of 2007 and requested to condone SCA/10658/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT the delay in preferring the appeal. However, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch by impugned order dated 31.7.2008 dismissed the said application by observing that considering Section 51 of the Wakf Act appeal is not maintainable. 4. It appears that there is a serious dispute whether the appeal against the permission / order of the Wakf Board is maintainable before the Tribunal or not as provided under Section 51 of the Wakf Act. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court ought to have condoned the delay first and ought to have considered thereafter the controversy with respect to maintainability of the appeal against the order passed by the Wakf Board and / or permission granted by the Wakf Board. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch requires to be quashed and set aside and delay is to be condoned in preferring the appeal by further directing the learned trial Court to consider the question with respect to maintainability of the appeal has submitted on behalf of the respondents. SCA/10658/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT 5. For the reasons stated above, petition succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch dated 31.7.2008 passed below Exh. 1 in Condonation Application No. 83 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside and delay in preferring the appeal against the permission / order of the Wakf Board is hereby condoned. As the delay is condoned the appeal will be placed before the learned trial Court / Tribunal and the question with respect to maintainability of the appeal is kept open and it will be open for the respondents to submit an appropriate application before the learned trial Court / Tribunal that such an appeal against the permission granted by the Wakf Act is not maintainable and the same be dealt with and considered by the learned trial Court / Tribunal before passing any further order in the appeal. Rule is made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. (M.R. Shah, J.) Kaushik