AMEERUDIN AHMAD Vs. BOARD OF WAKFS WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied before the Board of Wakf and prayed for deletion of the name of the concerned naib mutwalli. The Board did not decide the application. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the Board, the petitioner applied before the Wakf Tribunal under section 83(2) of the Act. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was of the view that an application under section 83(2) would be maintainable only when an order is passed by the Board which affects a party and not against inaction of the Board to pass an order. The application was, accordingly, held to be not maintainable and dismissed as such. Mr. Munshi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contends that the impugned order is not sustainable in law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (Board of Wakf, West Bengal & Anr. v. Anis Fatma Begum & Anr., 2011 1 WBLR 308). He refers to paragraphs 10, 11, 14 and 16 of the decision which reads as follows:

(2.) Mr. Yusuf, learned advocate appearing for the Board, contends that if the Board is alleged to be guilty of inaction, the remedy of the petitioner lies in approaching the Writ Court for redress.

(3.) Having heard learned Advocates for the parties, there is no reason to relegate the petitioner to the Writ Court in view of the clear opinion of the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 of the decision in Anis Fatma Begum .