IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CRP.No.562 OF 2018 BETWEEN TAHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST BANGALORE, A REGISTERED WAKF, NO.25/2, ARMSTRONG ROAD, BEHIND BHARATHINAGAR POLICE STATION, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND TRUSTEES MR. MAAZ AHMED SHARIEFF AND MR. MOHAMMED SANULLA. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHILASH RAJU, ADV.) AND 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, NO.6, ‘DARUL AUQAFS’, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
2. NAVBAHARR SHAH MAKAN, A REGISTERED WAKF, MAKAN ROAD, CIVIL STATION, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY.
3. M/S SHAHEEN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, A REGISTERED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, SITUATED AT ARMSTRONG ROAD, NEAR BAEDWADI MOSQUE, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SYED IMRAN, ADV. FOR C/R1, SRI. Z.A.KHURESHI, ADV. FOR R3 – ABSENT, R-2 - SERVED) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.83(9) OF THE WAKF ACT, 1995 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 07.09.2018 PASSED IN APPLICATION.NO.3/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL BENGALURU DN:BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER SEC.83(2),(5) AND (6) OF THE WAQF ACT, 1995 R/W SEC.5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE MAIN APPLICATION.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Abhilash Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Syed Imran, counsel for Caveator-R1 and Sri Z.A.Khureshi, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this revision petition under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 7th September 2018 passed by the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal, Bengaluru by which, the Tribunal has held that, no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 83(2)(5) and (6) of the Waqf Act, 1995 has been made out and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected as the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay in filing the application and consequently the petition under Section 83(2)(5) and (6) of the Waqf Act, 1995 has also been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Tribunal has adopted hyper-technical approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. It ought to have appreciated the explanation for the delay and a liberal construction should have been given and on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner has failed to disclose the name of the trustee who was suffering from ill-health and what was the ailment. It is also stated that the petitioner has not produced any documents along with the petition to substantiate the said fact. Therefore, the application which was filed by him before the Tribunal was rejected holding that, except the impugned resolution and the impugned order, petitioner was in possession of the remaining documents. Hence, the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition.
5. From perusal of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has stated that one of its trustees was not well and the petitioner was collecting the documents. Therefore, the delay of six months in filing the petition was caused. Along with the revision petition and application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has not filed the documents collected by it. Merely because of the fact that along with the petition, the petitioner had not filed any document, no such inference can be drawn as the petitioner was already in possession of the documents. The petitioner can file documents during the course of the proceedings. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, Waqf Tribunal while dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has taken a hyper-technical view and passed the impugned order. It is well settled legal proposition that the expression `sufficient cause’ should receive liberal construction to advance cause of justice.
6. In the facts and circumstances, it is held sufficient cause is made out by the petitioner for condonation of delay of six months’ in filing the revision petition. The finding recorded by the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal in this regard is held to be perverse. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed. The delay in filing the petition under Section 83(2)(5) & (6) of the Waqf Act, 1995 is hereby condoned and the Waqf Tribunal is directed to decide the case under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act on merits expeditiously in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR