UTTARAKHAND WAQF BOARD Vs. HAJI RAO SHARAFAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (plaintiff), it transpires that the plaintiff was removed from the office of Chairman of Uttarakhand Waqf Board, by the Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 20 of the Waqf Act. His services were terminated with effect from 25.04.2012. The order of State Government was challenged by way of instituting litigation in the Court of District Judge, who exercises the powers of Waqf Tribunal in the District as envisaged under the Act. So, only the State Government and Collector, Haridwar were impleaded as defendants. Somehow, the matter came up before the High Court in CLR No. 50 of 2013, wherein this Court directed the District Judge to hear the matter as a Civil Suit and since the term of office of plaintiff had to expire in July, 2015, hence, the District Judge was directed to adjudicate the matter within three months with effect from the date of service of order dated 22.05.2014.

(2.) ON 19.08.2014, the District Judge, after hearing the contentions of the plaintiff as well as defendants, by way of passing its order, directed the plaintiff to implead Uttarakhand Waqf Board as a necessary party. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff moved an application on 22.08.2014 seeking recall of such order with the averments that plaintiff was dominus litis, and thus, he cannot be forced to implead any third party who has no propriety in the matter. Having heard the matter on this issue, the District Judge recalled the order dated 19.08.2014 with the observations that after receiving the Written Statements of both the defendants and framing of the issues/additional issues, the decision will be taken as regards the impleadment of Uttarakhand Waqf Board as the necessary party.

(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the revisionist that no such issue, as regards the determination of the necessity to implead the Waqf Board as a necessary party, was made much less the evidence on this issue has been led by the parties. It was also submitted that the arguments may be heard at any point of time and the case thus will be decided finally by the District Judge, under the time limitation, as settled by the order of the High Court dated 22.05.2014.