IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.48554 OF 2016 (GM-WAKF ) BETWEEN:
1. ABDUL RAWOOF AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O ABDUL KAREEM SAB LATE, R/O RAILWAY STATION ROAD MUNICIPAL WARD NO.23, CHAMRAJPET CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.
2. AKRAM BAIG AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O R.AMANULLA BAIG R/O NO.90, WARD NO.24, KAARKHANAPET CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101. … PETITIONERS (By Mr. FATHIMA ZIHRA ADV., FOR Mr. MOHAMOOD PATEL, ADV.) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2. THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT WAQF ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CHICKBALLAPUR APPOINTED AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR JAMATH-E-AHLE ISLAM, CHICKBALLAPUR – 562101. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. SYED IMRAN ADV., FOR C/R2 Smt. S R ANURADHA ADV., FOR R1) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 01.08.2016 at Annex-A passed by R-1 board and /or issue any other order/s direction/s to the respondents in the matter and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Ms.Fathima Zohra, learned counsel for Sri.Mahamood Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners. Smt.S.R.Anuradha, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri.Syed Imran, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the respondent No.1 by which administrator has been appointed to manage the affairs of the Wakf.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondents have raised an objection on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of challenging the aforesaid order in an application under Section 83 read with Section 65(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners be granted liberty to file a representation against the aforesaid order.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Section 83 read with Section 65(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995, if so advised, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Needless to state that if the petitioners file revision within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
7. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV