1 wp2632.05.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2632 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2098 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2632 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1056 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2632 OF 2005 Kazi Sayyed Azizzuddin Walad Allauddin & Ors. ....Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Y.H. Muchhala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sagheer A. Khan, Mr. Javed Patel, Mr. Vaibhav Nagvekar and Mr. Hussain Kazi i/by Mr. Sagheer A. Khan for the Petitioners. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4. Mr. R.M. Momin for Respondent No.2. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 5 OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. :- The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that so far as the reliefs claimed by all prayer clauses except relief sought by 2 wp2632.05.sxw ssm prayer clause (h), does not survive for consideration in view of our Judgment in Writ Petition No. 2906 of 2004 and other connected matters dated 21 September 2011. The statement is accepted. 2 So far as relief claimed by prayer clause (h) is concerned, prayer clause (h) reads as under:- “h. that this Hon’ble Cour be pleased to declare Notice dated 3rd January 2005 bearing No. MSBW/CEO/4409/2005 issued by the Chairman of Respondent No.2 as null and void and the same may be quashed and set aside (being Exhibit “AB” hereto)”. 3 Perusal of the communication dated 3 January 2005 shows that it was addressed to Petitioner No.1 and the communication was addressed on the basis of the resolution of the Wakf Board dated 1 January 2005. The learned counsel appearing for the Wakf Board has stated before us that all decisions of the Chairman including the one in the notice dated 3 January 2005 have already been cancelled by the State Government. The statement is accepted. 4 In the present case, Petitioner No.1 to whom the communication was addressed is no more. By note 2 of the document dated 3 January 2005 the Manager of the Dena Bank, where the trust has its 3 wp2632.05.sxw ssm Account, has been directed by the Chairman of the Wakf Board not to permit Petitioner No.1 to operate the Bank Account. Now, Petitioner No.1 as stated above, is no more. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has informed us that as per the scheme of the Trust, the District Judge, Pune has passed order in relation to the appointment of the Trustees. In this back ground, therefore, in our opinion liberty can be granted to the Petitioners to approach the bank supported by necessary resolutions of the Trust and the orders made by the Competent Authority for permission to operate the Account. The Bank will have to decide as per the record produced by the Petitioners whether the Petitioners are competent to operate the account on behalf of the Trust. No directions in that regard to the Bank can be issued. 5 The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 Civil Application Nos. 2098 of 2005 and 1056 of 2008 are also disposed of. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)