Allowed

Sayyed Abbas Ameer v. Uttar Pradesh Waqfs Tribunal, through its Registrar, and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2024/26/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a civil revision challenging the Waqfs Tribunal's rejection of an interim relief application. The Court held that despite the revisionist raising the ground of non-service of a show-cause notice and lack of inquiry, the Tribunal failed to record a finding on this aspect. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Order dated 22.02.2023 and remitted the matter to th

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.02.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the interim relief application afresh after hearing all parties or to decide the appeal finally withi

Sayyed Abbas Ameer Vs Uttar Pradesh Waqfs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21287

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 26 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Sayyed Abbas Ameer

¶5

Opposite Party :- Uttar Pradesh Waqfs Tribunal, Through Its Registrar, And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Faisal Ahmad Khan

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Avinash Chandra,Syed Aftab Ahmad

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Faisal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.4.

¶9

Notice on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 & 3 has been accepted by Shri Syed Aftab Ahmad.

¶10

Under challenge is the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1 / learned Waqfs Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No.07 of 2022, whereby the interim relief application filed by the revisionist has been rejected.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist was appointed as Mutawalli by the Waqf Board (hereinafter referred to as "Board") through an order dated 06.03.2020. He has been removed by the Board vide order dated 31.03.2022, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the revision, under Section 64 (1)(i)(k) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1995").

¶12

Being aggrieved, the revisionist filed an appeal before the learned Waqfs Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") under Section 64(4) read with Section 83(2) of the Act, 1995 along with an application for interim relief. The matter was

¶13

heard. The revisionist also claims to have filed his written submissions, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the revision.

¶14

As the specific ground was taken both in the application for interim relief as well as in the written submissions, more particularly in paragraph 8 of the written submissions, that when an order is to be passed under the provision of Section 64 of the Act, 1995, the same is to be preceeded by an inquiry and show cause notice, but no show cause notice was ever served on the revisionist with the result that he could not file a reply to the said show cause notice. Thus, it was urged before the learned Tribunal in the interim relief application that the order impugned before the learned Tribunal i.e. the order dated 31.03.2022 merits to be stayed.

¶15

Learned Tribunal vide order impugned dated 22.02.2023 has rejected the interim relief application and hence, the instant revision.

¶16

The argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that when the revisionist in his appeal to the learned Tribunal had specifically raised the ground of no show cause notice, as contemplated under provision of Section 64 of the Act, 1955, being served upon the revisionist and consequently he was unable to submit his reply, as such it was the duty of the learned Tribunal, while considering the said interim relief application and while passing order on the said application, to have given a finding on the said aspect of the matter which has not been given and the interim relief application has been rejected summarily without considering the aforesaid grounds and as such, on this ground alone, the impugned order merits to be set aside.

¶17

On the other hand Shri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel

¶18

appearing for the opposite party No.4 has supported the impugned order of the learned Tribunal dated 22.02.2023 on the ground that learned Tribunal has specifically gone into the various grounds that have been raised by the revisionist before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal having specifically observed that after issue of show cause notice dated 25.02.2022, the revisionist had been given 15 days' time to submit his reply but his reply is not on record and therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in rejecting the said application for interim relief.

¶19

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

From a perusal of record, it emerges that aggrieved against the order of removal dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Board by which the revisionist / Mutawalli was removed, the revisionist filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for interim relief. The interim relief application was heard by the learned Tribunal. The revisionist also filed his written submissions and in paragraph 8 of the written submissions a specific ground has been taken that the inquiry was not held in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1995 and in paragraph 9 of the written submissions it was specifically stated that the revisionist was not heard.

¶21

Learned Tribunal vide the order impugned, after indicating that the revisionist has failed to bring on record the reply submitted by him, has rejected the said application along with several other grounds which have been considered by the learned Tribunal.

¶22

The argument of learned counsel of the revisionist is that when he has specifically indicated in his written submissions of

¶23

the inquiry not having been held in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1955 and that the order impugned has been passed without hearing the revisionist, consequently it was the duty of the learned Tribunal to have recorded its finding on the said ground which has been taken by the revisionist and as such, passing the order impugned without even referring to the grounds would be act not countenanced in the eyes of law.

¶24

A perusal of the order impugned dated 22.02.2023 indicates that despite the aforesaid grounds being taken by the revisionist, no specific finding has been given by the learned Tribunal with regard to the said grounds as raised by the revisionist.

¶25

Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussions, the revision is allowed. The order impugned dated 22.02.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the revision, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal to decide the application for interim relief afresh in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned. It is also open to the learned Tribunal to decide the appeal finally. Let a decision in this regard be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

Order Date :- 11.3.2024 S. Shivhare

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sayyed Abbas Ameer v. Uttar Pradesh Waqfs Tribunal, through its Registrar, and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyed Abbas Ameer v. Uttar Pradesh Waqfs Tribunal, through its Registrar, and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs Sriman Civil Judge Awar Khand Room No. 24 South and Another

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration and Ors. Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P. Allahabad and Anr.

Mayawati Vs District Magistrate Shravasti and Ors.

Smt. Sneh Lata Vs Nagar Palika Parishad Tanda Thru Chairman Ambedkar Nagar Ors.

Neelam Gupta and 2 Others Vs Addl. Distt. Judge Court No. 13 Lko. and 3 Others

Ramesh Chandra Verma and Ors. Vs State of U.P Thru Collector Kheri and Ors.