Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Board Of Waqf, ... vs The Learned Joint Charity ... on 14 September, 2015
Bench: A.P. Bhangale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1815 of 2015
Maharashtra State Board of Waqf
through its Chief Executive Officer,
R/o Panchakki, Aurangabad. .... Petitioner.
Versus
1] The learned Joint Charity Commissioner,
Nagpur.
2] Hazrat Baba Tajuddin Trust,
through its Secretary Mr Iqbal s/o Essmayeel Veljee,
having office at Tajabad Shareef, Nagpur.
3] Haji Abdul Gai Khan s/o Abdul Rahman
aged about 45 years, Occ.- Business,
R/o. Behind Sewa Sadan, Gandhibag Bus Stop,
Central Avenue, Nagpur
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2015 23:57:16 :::
2
4] Burzin s/o Noshir Randelia,
aged about 36 years, Occ.-Business,
R/o. Empress Mill Quarter, Old Santra Market,
Nagpur.
5] Mustafa Topiwala,
aged about 40 years, Occ.-Business,
R/o Muslim Masjid, Ganjakhet, Bhandara Road,
Nagpur.
6] Surendra s/o Ramchandra Jichkar,
aged about 54 years, Occ.-Business,
R/o. Pancharatna Apartment,
near G.P.O. Civil Lines, Nagpur.
7] Dr. Jarnailsingh Sampuransingh Saluja,
aged about 50 years, Occ.-Business,
R/o. Ramdaspeth Nagpur.
8] Sheikh Hussain s/o Abdul Jabbar,
aged about 62 years, Occ.-Business,
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2015 23:57:16 :::
3
R/o. Jagnath Budhwari, Opposite T.B. Hospital,
Nagpur.
9] Iqbal s/o Esmaeel Veljee,
Secretary, Hazrat Baba Tajuddin Trust,
Tajbad Shareef, Umrer Road, Nagpur.
10] Vijay Kumar Francis,
Treasurer, Hazrat Baba Tajuddin Trust,
Tajabad Shareef, Umrer Road, Nagpur ... Respondents
Mr. F. T. Mirza, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms P. D. Rane, AGP for respondent no.1.
Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate and
Mr. S.D. Abhyankar, Advocate with him for respdts no. 3 to 7
Mr A. S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate and Ms R. G. Bajaj, Advocate with him
for respondents no. 2, 9 and 10
----------
Writ petition No.1816 of 2015
Maharashtra State Board of Waqf
through its Chief Executive Officer,
R/o Panchakki, Aurangabad. .... Petitioner.
Versus
1] The learned Joint Charity Commissioner,
Nagpur.
2] Hazrat Baba Tajuddin Trust,
through its Secretary Mr Iqbal s/o Essmayeel Veljee,
having office at Tajabad Shareef, Nagpur.
3] Taj Ahmed Raja,
aged about 45 years,
R/o. Plot no.66, Nirala Society, Umred Road,
Tajabad, Nagpur.
4] Sheikh Hussain s/o Abdul Jabbar,
aged about 62 years, Occ.-Business,
R/o. Jagnath Budhwari, Opposite T.B. Hospital,
Nagpur.
5] Iqbal s/o Esmaeel Veljee,
Secretary, Hazrat Baba Tajuddin Trust,
Tajbad Shareef, Umrer Road, Nagpur.
6] Vijay Kumar Francis,
Treasurer, Hazrat Baba Tajuddin Trust,
Tajabad Shareef, Umrer Road, Nagpur ... Respondents
Mr. F. T. Mirza, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms P. D. Rane, AGP for respondent no.1.
Mr R. B. Khan, Advocate for respondent no. 3
Mr A. S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate and Ms R. G. Bajaj, Advocate with him
for respondents no. 2, 4, 5 and 6
Coram : A. P. Bhangale, J
Dated : 14th September 2015
Oral Judgment
1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.
2. Petitioner, the Maharashtra State Wakf Board, Aurangabad
through its Chief Executive Officer, has filed present writ petitions
challenging orders dated 7th March 2015 rejecting its application for
intervention in Misc. Applications No. 8 of 2014 and 39 of 2014.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Wakf Board is
constituted under Section 13 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and by virtue of
Section 32, the power of general superintendence of all auqafs in the State
of Maharashtra vest in the petitioner Board and it is the duty of the
petitioner Board to ensure that the auqafs under its superintendence are
properly maintained, controlled and administered. He submits that Hazrat
Baba Tajuddin Trust is a Waqf, duly notified in the Gazette Notification
dated 30.12.2004 and, therefore, the Joint Charity Commissioner will
cease to have jurisdiction in the matter. The Waqf Board wants to assist
the Joint Charity Commissioner.
4.
As against this, Mr A. C. Dharmadhikari submits that it is now
"Hazrat Baba Tajuddin Trust" and not "Tajabag Committee" and, therefore,
petitioner's contention that the Joint Charity Commissioner has no
jurisdiction, bears no merit. He submits that the Waqf Board has no
jurisdiction in the matter and it is the Charity Commissioner which alone
has jurisdiction over the matter. According to Mr Dharmadhikari, it is not
Muslim community people who have participation in the affairs of the
Trust, but there are number of people belonging to other religions who
have active role in the affairs of the Trust. Mr Dharmadhikari states that
if at all petitioner is allowed to intervene, it should be estopped from
raising the issue of jurisdiction before the Joint Charity Commissioner.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment of
this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 7171 of 2007 (Hazrat Baba
Tajuddin Trust v. State of Maharashtra and anr) on 27th September 2010.
I fail to understand as to how this judgment is useful for the petitioner. In
that case, this Court has set aside order of the Authority under Section 43
of the Waqf Act declaring that the said Trust is a Waqf within the meaning
of the Waqf Act, 1995. The Division Bench, however, observed that there
has to be a survey report submitted to the Board by the State Government
before making order under Section 5 (2) of the Act.
6. Be that as it may. Here, I am not supposed to examine any
aspects of the matter on merit. Petitioner is a statutory Board constituted
under Section 13 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Its right to assist the Joint
Charity Commissioner in the matter definitely exists though it is settled
position of law that intervener has no right to ask for any relief. As
regards the question of jurisdiction, whether the Waqf Board raises it or
not, it will be the duty of Joint Charity Commissioner to examine whether
he has jurisdiction over the matter in hand or not. At any rate, in my
opinion, in the light of the principles of natural justice, applications for
intervention will have to be granted to ensure that intervener is not
condemned as unheard.
7. In the result, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders
dated 7th March 2015 are set aside. Applications at exhibits 21 and 26 are
allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
A. P. BHANGALE, J
joshi
