Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated November 10, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Calcutta, West Bengal in O.A. No.12 of 2010 thereby disposing of an application for condonation of delay of 135 days. The short question involved in this application is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay of 135 days in filing an application under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 on the ground that the impugned resolution under challenge was not communicated to him in terms of the direction of the Honble Court in Writ Petition No.7851 of 2007.
(2.) BY the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has condoned the delay in filing the application under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995. According to the Rule 26 of the West Bengal Wakf Rules, 2001 any person aggrieved of an order made under the Act may make an application under Section 83(2) of the said Act to the Tribunal for determination of any dispute within 30 days of such order, unless otherwise expressly provided in the Act or a Rule made thereunder. But the situation is that there is no other Rule to condone the delay and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is generally used for praying for condonation of the delay. In the instant case, the writ application being W.P. No.7851(W) of 2007 was filed and while disposing of the said writ application, the Honble Justice Dipankar Datta disposed of the said writ application directing that a reasoned order shall be passed and such reasoned order shall be communicated to the parties immediately thereafter.
(3.) PURSUANT to that order the Board of Wakfs passed the order on December 23, 2009 and the resolution adopted on the said date was confirmed by the Board in its meeting held on January 28, 2010. Therefore, it may be pointed out that in all the orders relating to the grievance of the applicant before the Board refers to the compliance of the judgment dated May 16, 2007 passed by this Honble Court in W.P. No.7851(W) of 2007. Therefore, according to the decision of this Honble Court, the Board of Wakfs was to communicate the order to the opposite party no.3 but in spite of that direction by this Honble Court, the Board of Wakfs did not communicate the order confirmed by it, to the opposite party no.3. No appeal has been preferred against the order dated May 16, 2007 of this Honble Court in W.P. No.7851(W) of 2007. Therefore, the said order has attained finality and the parties are found by the order. The opposite party no.3 has contended that he sent two communications dated April 19, 2010 and May 25, 2010 which were duly received on April 21, 2010 and May 25, 2010. But no information was given to him and he came to know from the Office of the Board of Wakfs only on May 25, 2010 that the orders had been passed on December 23, 2009 and the same had been confirmed on January 28, 2010. Immediately, he applied the certified copy of the same and on getting the certified copy, he filed the application under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995. The application under Section5 of the Limitation Act was filed on June 16, 2010 and so, the learned Tribunal has observed that the application was filed within 30 days from the date of his knowledge. Since, the relevant materials clearly indicate that the Board of Wakfs has been directed to communicate the resolution immediately to the opposite party no.3 and it was not complied with, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal was justified in allowing the application for condonation of delay.;