FIROZKHAN PIRKHAN PATHAN Vs. GUJARAT STATE WAQF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Hemant Makwana, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Mr. N. Alvi, learned advocate, waive service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.2 herein, Nurul Mashaikh Haji Saiyed Nuruddin Junedbaba Rifai is the original applicant before the Civil Civil Court, Ahmedabad who had preferred Civil Misc. Applicant No. 455 of 2005. The said application was preferred for appointing him as a Trustee of the Trust, known as Shahaliji Gamdhani Dargah and Masjid, Raikhad, Ahmedabad. The case of respondent No.2 before the trial Court is that there is a registered Trust in the name of Shahaliji Gamdhani Dargah and Masjid having registration No. B/151 under section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. It is the case of the said applicant that a person can be appointed as a Trustee by the District Court. The Trustees originally appointed have died and at present there is no trustee of the aforesaid Trust. It is also the case of the original applicant that one Darulum Shaealam was appointed to manage the affairs of the Trust by the order of the Court dated 18.07.1959 in Civil Misc. Application No. 128 of 1956 but now he is not willing to manage the said Trust. Accordingly, the said application was filed by the above applicant for appointing him as Trustee. The trial Court issued public notice calling upon objections but since nobody has objected, the learned trial Judge, by the impugned order, appointed respondent No. 2 as Trustee of the above Trust. The present appellants have challenged the said order by filing an appeal and an application for leave to appeal as they were not parties before the trial Court. This Court, vide its order dated 08.03.07 has permitted the appellants to prosecute the appeal.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Tirmizi for the appellants submitted that since the advertisement was given in Jansatta daily, which do not have wide circulation in the area, the advertisement went unnoticed and therefore none objected. He submitted that had the advertisement been given in a daily newspaper having wider circulation in the area, several people could have noticed it and raised objections which could have been considered by the trial Court.