MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WAQF Vs. RAM PRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1183 of 2012 dtd. 15/3/2018. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent-writ petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notification dtd. 28/3/2012 (wrongly mentioned in the writ petition as 28/3/2011) issued by the Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand to the extent of allotting 2.53 acres of land to Madarsa Mustafa Educational Society in Ward No. 5 Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to allot 3 acres of land to the respondent-writ petitioner, and not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the land of the Temple of Shree Chamunda Devi Mandir Temple situated in Purana Khera, Ward No. 5, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar; and to direct respondents 1 to 4 to record the land of Khera Khatoni holders, mentioned in the writ petition, in the name of Shree Chamunda Devi Mandir Society.

(2.) While the respondent-writ petitioner sought, among others, the relief to quash the notification dtd. 28/3/2012, alloting 2.53 acres of land to Madarsa Mustafa Educational Society, they did not array the Madarsa Mustafa Educational Society as a respondent in the writ petition. Since grant of the relief sought for in the writ petition, which is to quash the notification whereby land was allotted in favour of the Madarsa Mustafa Educational Society, would deprive the said Society of its rights, it was, undoubtedly, a necessary party to the writ petition, and failure of the respondent-writ petitioner to array necessary parties in writ proceedings is fatal and would have necessitated dismissal of the writ petition in limine.

(3.) The present application is filed seeking leave to prefer an appeal. While it is, no doubt, true that the applicant has also filed a delay Condonation Application No. 6816 of 2019 to condone the delay of 400 days in preferring the Special Appeal, the question of delay would only arise if a party to the writ proceedings had failed to prefer an appeal, against the order passed in the writ petition, within the stipulated time. As noted hereinabove the applicant, who seeks leave to appeal, was not a party to the writ petition, though it was, undoubtedly, a necessary party thereto.