Dismissed

Usman Ibrahim Mujawar v. Hazarat Peer Malik Rehan Durgah and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Nov 2016WP/11332/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal of change report under Wakf Act by Deputy Charity Commissioner citing lack of jurisdiction. Court held statutory appeal exists under Public Trusts Act, dismissed writ, liberating petitioner to approach appellate authority within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to institute appeal within ten days; period treated as bona fide.

Usman Ibrahim Mujawar Vs Hazarat Peer Malik Rehan Durgah… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

skc

¶2

51-WP-11332-16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 11332 OF 2016

¶5

Usman Ibrahim Mujawar .. Petitioner vs. Hazarat Peer Malik Rehan Durgah & Anr. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. T. S. Ingale for Petitioner. Ms M. S. Bane – AGP for State. None for other Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 15 NOVEMBER 2016

¶8

P.C :

¶9

1] The petitioner challenges order dated 2 August 2016 made by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur, dismissing the petitioner's change report no. 265/16 on the ground that the Deputy Charity Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain such change report in view of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act 1995.

¶10

2] Mr. Ingale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a clear case of failure to exercise jurisdiction arising out of misinterpretation of decisions of this court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of Wakf Act 1995. Therefore, he submits that the present petition be entertained.

¶11

3] In terms of Section 70 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950 (said Act) an appeal lies against the impugned order before the Charity Commissioner or the Joint Charity Commissioner as the

1/2

skc

51-WP-11332-16

case may be. The contention now raised by Mr. Ingale, learned counsel for the petitioner, can as well be raised before the appellate authority. Since, there is a statutory appeal against the impugned order, there is no necessity to entertain the present petition.

¶16

4] Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to institute an appeal. All contentions of all parties are left open for determination by the appellate authority.

¶17

5] Mr. Ingale states that the petitioner will institute an appeal within a period of ten days from today. If this is done, then the period from the date of institution of this petition and the date of institution of the appeal may be treated as period spent bona fide in pursuing remedy against the impugned order.

¶18

6] Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be

¶19

no order as to costs.

¶20

7] All concerned to act on basis of authenticated copy of this order.

¶21

Chandka

¶22

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶23

2/2

Usman Ibrahim Mujawar v. Hazarat Peer Malik Rehan Durgah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman Ibrahim Mujawar v. Hazarat Peer Malik Rehan Durgah and Anr.

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

Capital Controls India Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. Vs De Nora Water Technologies, Inc.

Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. Vs Chloro Controls (India ) Pvt. Ltd.

Shahi Shipping Limited (Formerly Sks Logistics Limited) Vs Fairmacs Shipping and Transport Services Pvt. Ltd.

Aruna G.Jarandikar and Ors. Vs Yashwant Vitthal Mane

Jaya Jayantilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Smt. Sumitra Narayan Sakpal Alias Venibai L. Bhuvad through Ca. Shri. Narendra Sakpal Vs Addl. Konkan Divisional Officer and Ors.