1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.135 of 2011 In Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.1297 of 2009 (D) In Writ Petition No.372 of 2007 (D) (Naginabi w/o Shaukat Ali v. The Chairman, Wakf Board, State of Maharashtra, Aurangabad, and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.A. Marathe, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 8 th August, 2011 The complaint in this contempt petition is about willful disobedience/breach of the order dated 14-12-2009 passed by this Court while disposing of Misc. Civil Application No.1297 of 2009. Though the review petition has been disposed of, it was made clear that in view of the provisions of Section 69 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Board would frame the scheme only if it is satisfied that it is necessary and desirable to frame the same. Shri Marathe, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, to whom the Wakf Board has delegated the power. According to him, it is not the decision of the Wakf 2 Board, and hence there is a disobedience of the order passed by this Court. It is his further submission that there is no finding recorded by the Wakf Board that it is necessary and desirable to frame the scheme. Hence, on that count also, there is a violation of the order passed by this Court. No doubt, this Court had directed the Wakf Board to pass an order framing the scheme. The order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board. The question whether such a power can be delegated by the Board to the Chief Executive Officer, cannot be agitated in this contempt petition. Similarly, in the absence of any finding regarding necessity and desirability of framing the scheme, the order would be the violation of Section 69 of the Wakf Act. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to take all such remedies as are available to her in law to challenge the action of the respondents. In view of above, no case is made out for taking cognizance in the matter. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl