MANSURI KODARBHAI MOHMADBHAI Vs. MANSURI FAKIRBHAI RAHEMANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.5.2013 passed by the WAKF Tribunal in Civil Misc. Application No.79 of 2013 preferred by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay of 6 months and 17 days occurred in filing the appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 25.5.2012 passed by the Gujarat State WAKF Board in complaint filed by the petitioners under Sections 28, 32, 33 and 34 of the WAKF Act, 1995.

(2.) CASE of the petitioners is that they are trustees of the registered WAKF namely Mansuri (Ghanchi) Sunni Jamat Sabli and the respondents who were appointed as members in the sub -committee were though expected to submit accounts and manage the affairs of the Trust, but failed to submit such accounts and manage the affairs of the Trust which made the petitioners to make complaint before the WAKF Board. WAKF Board passed an order on 25.5.2012 directing the respondents to submit change report with regard to particulars of lands purchased as also directing the President of the sub -committee named Kadarbhai Allarakhabhai, Secretary named Mansuri Rajabbhai Valibhai and Committee member named Rafikbhai Haji Valibhai to give accounts for the period from 1.10.2007 to 31.3.2010 to the President of Lifetime Committee within 30 days from the date of the order. However such accounts were not submitted and therefore, the petitioners were compelled to issue legal notice, to which the respondents gave reply stating that the petitioners were misinterpreting the order of the WAKF Board and that there was no direction in the order dated 25.5.2012 either to remove the subcommittee or not to administer the WAKF Trust. In such view of the matter, it was felt necessary to challenge the order dated 25.5.2012 to the extent the WAKF Board did not grant relief to remove the subcommittee and for administering the WAKF. It is stated in the petition that though in the application for condonation of delay, the reasons for delay are not elaborated, however, reasons are provided that after legal notice was issued and reply was received, talks for settlement were going on. It is the case of the petitioners that the Secretary met with an accident and therefore, he could not take immediate action for filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Manish Shah for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error while observing that the petitioners have not stated any reason for delay in the application. Mr. Shah submitted that though the petitioners could be said to have not elaborated the reasons in the application, however from para 3 of the application, it could be seen that the petitioners have stated that after the legal notice was issued and reply was received by the petitioners, on several occasions, meetings between the parties were held and talks for settlement were going on and the petitioners were made to believe that the respondents would submit correct and true accounts for administering WAKF. Mr. Shah submitted that considering the grounds of challenge in the appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have taken liberal view of the matter, especially when it has discretion available under The WAKF Act, 1995 and Rule 3(2)(h) of the Gujarat State WAKF Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1998 to condone delay on finding that there is some explanation for such delay. Mr. Shah thus urged to allow the petition and to quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to hear and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioners on merits.