w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Saleem v/s Suleiman & Other

    MC (Review Pet.) Nos. 8, 9 of 2022 in Review Ptn. No. 10 of 2022

    Decided On, 14 September 2022

    At, High Court of Meghalaya

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJIB BANERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE W. DIENGDOH

    For the Applicant: K. Paul, Sr.Adv, R. Dutta, S. Chanda, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----



Judgment Text

Sanjib Banerjee, J. (Oral):

1. The two applications are for condonation of delay and for leave to seek review of an order dated July 20, 2022 passed in WA No.27 of 2022.

2. The marginal delay in applying to this Court is condoned in view of the good grounds shown.

3. Obviously, the applicant was not a party to the appeal proceedings and the applicant says that the relevant order did not take into account certain aspects of the matter, particularly whether the property in question could be regarded as a waqf property without the statutory survey and consequential exercise being undertaken. In such regard, the applicant refers to some previous orders of this Court in respect of the relevant property.

4. Since the primary application is merely for leave to seek a review of the relevant order, the parties to WA No.27 of 2022 have not been given notice and are not represented. However, the order that is proposed to be made herein will not prejudice any person.

5. The order dated July 20, 2022 did not deal with the merits of the rival claims of the private parties thereto as to who ought to be the sole or joint mutawalli and who ought not to be allowed to discharge such functions. The order merely noticed that a previous order of this Court required the Board of Waqf to take a decision, but the order which had been passed pursuant to the relevant direction was by the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board. The relevant order observed that since the CEO of the Waqf Board could not be regarded as the Waqf Board itself, the decision had to be taken by the Board. The matter was remanded for a fresh consideration thereof by the Waqf Board.

6. However, at the time that the order dated July 20, 2022 was passed, the Court was informed that there may not be any Waqf Board in place. Accordingly, a direction was issued for the constitution of an appropriate Waqf Board in accordance with law within a specified time, failing which the matter could be brought to this Court by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. Accordingly, the present applications seeking leave to review the order dated July 20, 2022 are disposed of by giving liberty to the applicant to apply before the Waqf Board or this Court, as the case may be, to be heard and the orders that have now been brought to the notice of this Court to be taken into account before passing an order as to the choice of the mutawalli or joint mutawalli in respect of the alleged waqf estate.

8. The applicant will immediately forward copies of the applications seeking leave together with all attendant papers and copies of this order to the parties to WA No.27 of 2022. Such exercise should be completed within a fortnigh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t from date. 9. MC (Review Pet.) No.8 of 2022 along with MC (Review Ptn.) No.9 of 2022 and Review Ptn.No.10 of 2022 are disposed of. 10. This order is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties to WA No.27 of 2022. 11. There will be no order as to costs.
O R