Delhi High Court
Malik Mohd. Tanveer & Ors vs Madrarsa Tululoom & Ors on 13 March, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 13.03.2012
+ CM(M)No. 869/2011 and CM No. 13994/2011
MALIK MOHD. TANVEER & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Tandon, Advocate.
versus
MADRARSATULULOOM & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Javed Ahmed, Advocate for
R-10.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Addl. Standing
Counsel, GNCTD/R-11.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. The order impugned before this court is the order dated
05.03.2011; the impugned judgment had noted that the petition filed by
the petitioners before the Waqf Tribunal is not maintainable as the
reliefs prayed for by the petitioners (in terms of the petition) cannot be
granted by the Tribunal; petition had accordingly been dismissed.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by this finding.
3. Record shows that the present wakf petition had been filed by the
two petitioners before the Wakf Tribunal at Patiala House. The
contentions as depicted from the petition disclose that the petitioners
were aggrieved by the fact that the respondent No. 2 who was working
as a President of the Waqf was using it for his own benefits. He was
using the monitory resources of the Trust for his personal interest. His
job was supervisory in nature but he was manipulating things in such a
manner that all efforts were being made by him to derive illegal benefits
from the money of the Trust; the petitioners were compelled to write a
letter to respondent No. 2 to which they have not received any reply;
further contention is that the respondent No. 2 has deliberately inducted
other persons in the Trust who are illiterate in order that respondent No.
2 continues to exercise complete control and dominus over the Trust.
Contention is that the respondent No. 10 (Wakf Board) be superseded
and respondent No. 11 (Delhi Government) be directed to take control
of the Wakf and formulate a proper scheme for the said purpose. The
prayers in the petition are contained as follows:-
"a. That respondent No. 10, may be superseded and the respondent
No. 11 may be directed to take control of the Wakf and formulate a
proper scheme for the said affairs of the respondent No. 1 so that the
working and affairs of respondent No. 1, are transparent and are not
subjected to abuse and misuse and the affairs are not misappropriated by
anybody for his personal gain.
b. That the defendant No. 1 committee may be liquidated and the
respondent No. 2 to 9 may be removed and the control of the Wakf may
be taken from them and may be kept away from managing the Wakf.
c. That the respondent No. 2 to 9 may be ordered to give account
of the affairs of the respondent No. 1 during the period they were
managing the affairs of respondent No. 1.
d. That the necessary investigation may be ordered by an
independent agency/chartered accountant to ensure that the affairs of
respondent No. 1 which has already been bused could be brought to light
and consequently appropriate order for undue and refund of the benefit
derived by the respondent No. 2 to 9 are compelled to return the same.
e. Any other order which this Hon‟ble Wakf Tribunal deem fit in
the circumstances of the case not claimed.
f. Cost of the suit may be awarded.
g. The necessary measures may be taken for the appointment of a
court receiver who will manage the affairs of the Wakf till such period
matter in controversy is pending before this Hon‟ble Tribunal.
h. Ad-interim injunction restraining respondent No. 2 to 9 to
interfere in the management of affairs of respondent No. 1.
i. Respondent No. 10 may be ordered to provide the entire record
for investigation."
4. This petition was filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) read with Section 6 of
the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act.
5. The Wakf Act is a complete Code in itself; Wakf Tribunal can
entertain petitions only those which are permissible under the provisions
of the said Act.
6. Under Section 83(2) of the said Act there are three categories of
persons who can file a petition before the Tribunal: (i) Mutawali; (ii)
person interested in Wakf; (iii) any other person aggrieved by the order
made under the Act or rules framed thereunder.
7. The petitioners do not fall in either of the three categories; a
person interested in the Wakf has been defined in Section 3(k). This
provision read reads as follows:-
"3(k) Person interested in a wakf means any person who is entitled to
receive any pecuniary or other benefits from the wakf and includes-
(i) Any person who has a right to worship or to perform any
religious rite in a mosque, idgah, imambara, dargah, khangah,
maqbara, graveyard or any other religious institution connected
with the wakf or to participate in any religious or charitable
institution under the wakf;
(ii) The wakif and any descendant of the wakif and the mutwali."
8. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to receive
any pecuniary or other benefits from the Wakf; this Wakf does not relate
to any mosque, idgah, imambara, dargah, khangah, maqbara, graveyard
or any other religious institution; the petitioner do not fall even within
the provision of Section 3 (k) of the said Act.
9. Allegations made in the petition are largely of the mis-
management of the Board; prayer is that the Wakf Board should be
superseded by the Delhi Government. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has vehemently relied upon the provision of Section 69 and 70
of the said Act. Both these provisions deal with the powers of the Board
to frame a scheme for the administration of the Wakf. Nowhere in the
entire petition has it been averred that any letter or communication prior
to the filing of the suit was sent to the Board. On a specific query put to
the learned counsel for the petitioner on this count, he has no answer.
Impugned judgment had also noted that the petitioners have not
approached the Wakf Board about the mis-management of the Wakf
with a prayer that action may be taken against the Managing Committee
before resorting to this present petition.
10. The Tribunal cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Board; Section
69 and 70 of the said Act in fact stipulate that if there is a
mismanagement of the wakf, information has to be sent to the Board
where an appropriate scheme can be framed and also call for an
enquiry. Although the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not completely
ousted, yet the prayers which are sought for in the present petition are
clearly prayers which are outside the domain of the Wakf Tribunal.
11. In this case, the prayers made for by the petitioner do not fall
within the domain of the Tribunal. Petition was rightly dismissed.
12. Impugned order calls for no interference. Petition is without any
merit; dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MARCH 13, 2012
rb
