Disposed

Mohd Sayeed v. Uttarakhand Wakf Board of Dehradun

Uttarakhand HC9 May 2019CLR/20/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order expunging an adverse remark contained in a Waqf Board resolution against the petitioner after hearing counsel. The disposal confirmed the appointment of the second respondent and maintained the rest of the board's decision.

What did the court decide?

Expunged the adverse remark from the Waqf Board's resolution while upholding the Board's appointment decision.

Mohd Sayeed Vs Uttarakhand Wakf Board of Dehradun — Uttarakhand HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CLR No. 20 of 2019 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the revisionist.

¶3

Ms. Nishat Intezar & Mr. Ahrar Baig, Advocates for respondent no. 1. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

Revisionist was appointed as Mutavalli of Waqf property No. 35, situated in Haldwani, District Nainital w.e.f. 30.07.2007 for a term of three years. After completion of his term, he was never re-appointed; however, he was authorized to look after the Court cases in respect of the Wakf. Subsequently, Uttarakhand Waqf Board passed a resolution on 07.04.2018, whereby one Mr. Fasahat Moin S/o Moinuddin Khan (respondent no. 2) was appointed as Mutavalli of the aforesaid Waqf for a period of five years and application made by the revisionist (Mohd Sayeed) for re-appointment as Mutavalli was rejected. However, the Uttarakhand Waqf Board made some observation against the conduct of the revisionist which, according to the revisionist, was wholly unwarranted.

¶6

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that observation made in the said order is stigmatic in nature and was made without hearing the revisionist. Thus, feeling aggrieved, revisionist approached the Waqf Tribunal, Kumaon Region, Haldwani under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995, however, the Waqf Tribunal has rejected

¶7

revisionists’ application filed under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 on the ground that no Appeal is maintainable under Section 83(2) of the Act. The reason for this observation appears to be that revisionist had used the expression “Appeal’ instead of “application” in his application filed under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act. The order passed by learned Waqf Tribunal on 25.01.2019 is under challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 83 (9) of the Waqf Act.

¶8

The only grievance raised by the revisionist is that order passed by Uttarakhand Waqf Board is stigmatic in nature, which may adversely affect his career prospects, therefore, he submits that the observation made by the Waqf Board against the revisionist without hearing him may be expunged.

¶9

Admittedly, revisionist was not heard by the Waqf Board.

¶10

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 have no objection if the adverse remark in the resolution dated 07.04.2018 passed by Uttarakhand Waqf Board is expunged.

¶11

Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the adverse remark contained in the resolution passed by Uttarakhand Waqf Board against the revisionist is expunged. However, rest of the decision taken by Uttarakhand Waqf Board in its resolution dated 07.04.2018 shall remain intact and appointment of respondent no. 2 made vide Office

¶12

Memorandum dated 01.05.2018 will not be affected by this order.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation, the Civil Revision stands disposed of.

¶14

Navin

¶15

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)

Mohd Sayeed v. Uttarakhand Wakf Board of Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Sayeed v. Uttarakhand Wakf Board of Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manorama Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare Dehradun

Smt. Renu Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare Secretariat Dehradun

Neelam Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand

Asha Devi Vs Public Service Tribunal and Another

Naresh Kumar Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Vipin Chandra Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand