MOMIN VALIBHAI KAMALBHAI Vs. GUAJARAT STATE WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the grounds stated in the petition for the following prayers:

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri A.J. Memon appearing for the petitioners has referred to the affidavitin reply and submitted that whether the deed is fabricated or tempered with the record are the allegations, which are required to be considered and the rejection of the change Report No.356/2003 on any such ground may be quashed and set aside and the change Report at AnnexureB dated 22.04.2004 may be restored on the grounds stated in the petition. He has also referred to the papers and submitted that once the order has been passed by the authority, the power of judicial review is not available. In support of this submission, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Patel Narshi Thakershi and others, V. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji reported in AIR 1970 SC 1273. He has also emphasized on the observation made in para 4 of the judgment that power to review is not an inherent power and unless such power is conferred by the Statute, such review is not permissible. He has also referred to the papers and submitted that submissions about fabrication of the document are misconceived, as it was the same position in the 1973 and therefore, he has submitted that the present petition may be allowed. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Whirlpool Corporation V. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 22, to support his contention about maintainability of the alternative remedy under the Wakf Act. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dinkar Shankarrao Patil & Ors. V. Dr. Shenshrao Shankarrao Patil & Ors., reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 593.

(3.) IN rejoinder, learned Advocate Shri Memon has referred to and relied upon the papers and reiterated the submissions. It was submitted that the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 who are the old trustees may find out difficult for the past management and therefore they are objecting to the appointment of new trustees. Further, he submitted that FIR has been lodged by them to serve their purpose.