cra26.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.26 OF 2011. Sanaullah Khan and ors. .. APPLICANTS. VERSUS Maharashtra State Wakf Board and others. ..RESPONDENTS. ... Shri G.D. Shaikh, Advocate h/f Shri Mohd. Arreque Ahmed, Adv. for Applicants. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 22nd July, 2011. PER COURT: 1. This civil revision application has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 7.12.2010 passed on an application u/s 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995. By the impugned order, the application of the applicants herein came to be dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-. The applicants were directed to submit accounts of income of the Wakf to the Tribunal since filing of the said application. cra26.11 2 2. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the directions given by the Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad on 10.11.2008 in Application No.16/2007 at Exh.31 were given to the Wakf Board / respondent No.7 therein and not to the CEO who has issued letter dated 25th February, 2009 addressed to the Regional Wakf Officer, Vidarbha Region. According to the Counsel for the applicants, unless the powers are delegated by the Board to the CEO as contemplated u/s 27 of the said Act, the CEO was not competent to issue such letter to the Regional Wakf Officer, Vidarbha Region. He further submits that further direction to respondent No.7 to appoint District Wakf Officer to manage affairs of the Wakf, was only as an interim arrangement. However, the CEO acted in violation of the directions of the tribunal and further directed to take the property of the Wakf under control and to give it on Ek Saal Lawani. So, the CEO acted contrary to the direction/order dated 10.11.2008 given by the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal. It is further cra26.11 3 submitted that the letter written by the CEO to the Regional Wakf Officer, Vidarbha Region stating therein that after taking the land in possession, it should be given on Ek Saal Lawani and the said officer should carry out all the activities like Mutawali is contrary to the said order. Therefore, he would submit that the civil revision application may be entertained. 3. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants. Upon perusal of the directions given by the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal on 10.11.2008 in Application No.16/2007 at Exh.31, it is abundantly clear that the direction was given to the Wakf Board - respondent No.7 therein and the respondent no.7 the Maharashtra Wakf Board was represented through its Chief Executive Officer. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the Counsel for the applicants that direction was given to the Wakf Board and not to the CEO. cra26.11 4 Coming to the second contention of the applicants that the direction given to the Board is a temporary measure and therefore, any further direction by the CEO of the Wakf Board to the Regional Wakf Officer, Vidarbha Region to give the land on Ek Saal Lawani or to perform the activities like Mutawali is contrary to the direction given by the Wakf Tribunal on 10.11.2008, is required to be rejected. From reading of the letter written by the Wakf Board shows that the CEO did not act contrary to the directions of the Tribunal. On the contrary, he has implemented directions of the tribunal. It is an admitted position that when the matter was heard, neither the applicants nor their Advocate appeared before the tribunal on the date fixed for hearing and, therefore, the tribunal was constrained to observe in that the applicants and their advocate were absent though called repeatedly. 4. Upon considering the case in its entirety, I am of cra26.11 5 the opinion that no case is made out by the revision applicants for causing interference in the impugned order. No jurisdictional error has been brought to the notice of this Court. The tribunal, which has passed the impugned order, has jurisdiction to pass such order. There is no any illegality or irregularity committed by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, civil revision application is devoid of merits and it stands disposed of. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the applicants states that part of the order imposing costs on the applicants may be recalled. Such a prayer cannot be entertained since the applicants and their advocate remained absent instead of repeated calls and the tribunal has rightly imposed costs. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/*