Sufi Tafseer Mohd Vs. M.P. Wakf Board - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1053974
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnFeb-22-2013
AppellantSufi Tafseer Mohd
RespondentM.P. Wakf Board
Excerpt:
writ petition no :2634. / 2013 sufi tafseer mohd. versus mp wakf board and others 22.02.2013. shri m. shafiqullah for the applicant. challenging an interlocutory order passed by the wakf tribunal on 4.2.2013, refusing to grant stay in an appeal proceedings pending before the wakf tribunal, this writ petition has been filed. for the purpose of managing the property in question, an order has been passed by the wakf board, appointing a committee and challenging the same the appeal has been filed before the tribunal, which is pending. in the pending proceedings an application for interim stay was passed and the learned tribunal has rejected the same and for rejecting the application for stay two reasons are given: the firs.reason is that under section 67(4) of the wakf act, 1995 there is no.....
Judgment:

Writ Petition No :

2634. / 2013 Sufi Tafseer Mohd.

versus MP Wakf Board and others 22.02.2013.

Shri M.

Shafiqullah for the applicant.

Challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Wakf Tribunal on 4.2.2013, refusing to grant stay in an appeal proceedings pending before the Wakf Tribunal, this writ petition has been filed.

For the purpose of managing the property in question, an order has been passed by the Wakf Board, appointing a Committee and challenging the same the appeal has been filed before the Tribunal, which is pending.

In the pending proceedings an application for interim stay was passed and the learned Tribunal has rejected the same and for rejecting the application for stay two reasons are given: The fiRs.reason is that under section 67(4) of the Wakf Act, 1995 there is no provision for stay.

That apart, on merit, it has been held that a Committee has been constituted and if the working of the said Committee is stayed, it would cause adveRs.affect on the working and finding that it does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, the application for stay is rejected.

Even though learned counsel tried to emphasize that the said application was maintainable, the fact remains that the learned Tribunal has exercised its discretion and has found that the new Committee appointed is functioning and finding no case for grant of stay, the application is rejected.

As the matter is pending on merits before the Tribunal, I see no reason to interfere at this interlocutory stage.

Instead, the 2 Writ Petition No :

2634. / 2013 Arun Kumar Tiwari versus The Chief General Manager and others learned Tribunal is directed to decide the lis after hearing all concerned in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-