- (1.) Heard Sri Shafiq Mirza, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 has been accepted by Sri Mohammad Sayeed. The opposite party No. 4 has filed his caveat. Notice has also been thus served upon him. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Shafiq Mirza says that learned counsel for the caveator/opposite party No. 4 has also been informed about todays date fixed in the case, but he is not present. Counsel for the parties agree that this matter may be disposed of finally.
(2.) The petitioner No. 2. who is mutwalli of the waqf in question, feels aggrieved by an order dated 20.4.2011. passed by the Chairman Central Waqf Board, contained in Office Memorandum dated 29.4.2011. by means of which the earlier order, passed by the then Chairman of the Board dated 18.4.2007. has been stayed and direction has been issued that the matter be decided by the Board after affording opportunity to the persons concerned. In short, facts of the case are that that the petitioner, admittedly is duly appointed mutwalli of the waqf which he claims to be In the nature of waqf alal aulad.
(3.) Some complaints were made against him and his functioning as mutwalli, on which the Chairman of the Board passed an order on 18.4.2007 exonerating the petitioner of all the charges. Against the aforesaid order, reference was made under Section 83 of the Act, wherein an application for stay was also moved by the complainant but the same was rejected. The reference is still pending. In the meantime, Siraj Wali Khan and Fareed Pindari made some complaint regarding misappropriation of the waqf property and malfunctioning of the mutwalli. It was also alleged that in the earlier notice, issued under Section 64 of the Act. all the charges were not levelled against the petitioner, but only on minor charges, notice was issued, of which charges the petitioner stood exonerated. Inspector waqf also submitted a report on 20th April, 2011 which was approved by the Chairman and consequently on the complaint made against the petitioner, the impugned order of stay has been passed.;