bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 479 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO. 479 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO. 479 OF 2008 Mohd. Farid Tungekar ... Appellant v/s Mohd. Amin Antulay & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Ghanshyam R. Mishra for the appellant. Mr.Chirag Balsara i/by M/s.Divya Shah & Associates for the respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 21ST JULY, 2008 21ST JULY, 2008 21ST JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The appeal from order has been filed against the order passed by the Judge City Civil Court, Mumbai, on 19.4.2008 dismissing the Notice of Motion No.826 of 2008. 2. The appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit for a declaration that the notice issued to him on 24.3.2008 by defendant No.1 is illegal. He has also sought a mandatory injunction be issued permanently restraining the defendants 1 to 11 from taking any coercive decision against him including that of removing, dismissing or ex-communicating the plaintiff as the trustee of the 2 Jama Masjid of Bombay Trust. 3. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties observed that the defendant No.11 Trust had no power to remove the plaintiff as a trustee as that power is vested only with the WAKF Board and, therefore, did not grant any interim relief. 4. An affidavit has been filed by defendant No.1, the Chairman of the defendant No.11 Trust. In para 7, the defendant No.1 has averred that the plaintiff can be removed only by the WAKF Board and not by the Board of Trustees. He has also stated that, in the event the Board of Trustees decided that such steps ought to be taken against the plaintiff, all that the Board would do is to place a complaint before the WAKF Board which will then, on the basis of 2/3 majority, decide the fate of the plaintiff. 5. In my opinion, in view of the averments contained in the affidavit of Mohammed Amin Antulay - defendant No.1 and Chairman of defendant No.11, there is no need to pass any orders as prayed for in the present appeal from order. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the notice of motion. 3 6. It is made clear that, in the event a meeting is held by the Trust in which it is decided that coercive measures including of removal should be taken against the plaintiff, such actions would be taken only by the WAKF Board and till such orders are passed by the WAKF Board, the plaintiff will continue to function as a Trustee. 7. The defendants will inform the plaintiff of any meeting to be held and also of any resolution which may be passed by them. 8. Appeal from order stands disposed of accordingly. 9. Civil application No.555 of 2008 also stands disposed of in view of disposal of the appeal from order.