HAJI NASEEM AHMAD Vs. UTTARAKHAND WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case was taken up yesterday and it was argued by the advocate on record Mr. Aditya Kumar Arya for quite a long time. The court posed a query as to how the writ petition would be maintainable against the impugned order dtd. 4/11/2011 when it involves a question of appointment of respondent no. 4 as Mutwalli of the Waqf No. 8, Pithoragarh, because the said controversy would fall to be within the ambit of the provision as contained under Sec. 83 of the Waqf Act, which provides for approaching the Tribunal for redressal of the grievance pertaining to induction, continuance, or removal of a person from the office of Mutwalli of a Waqf. Sec. 83 reads as under:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for sometime and then had requested that the matter to be posted today. Today yet again when the matter was taken up a request has been made for keeping the matter in the revised call. The court declined the said request and proceeded to hear the counsel for the parties on the merits of the writ petition.

(3.) Brief facts as apparent on record are that, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved against an order passed by respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, i.e. dtd. 4/11/2011, which was passed as a consequence of compliance of the order passed by this court in earlier Writ Petition No. 265 of 2011 (M/S) 'Haji Naseem Ahmad vs. Uttarakhand Waqf Board and Others', which was disposed of on 3/8/2011 with the following directions: