- (1.) This is a petition challenging the order passed by the learned Wakf Tribunal dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The facts, accord ng to the petitioner, in short, are the Board of Wakfs issued a notice dated 21 st March, 2005 intimating that the emolument committee will consider appointment of mutwali in respect of the Wakf Estate on 29th March, 2005. On 23rd March, 2005 the petitioner received the notice. Thereafter, nothing was heard till 29th July, 2005 when the petitioner received a letter dated 26th July, 2005 when he came to learn about the resolution dated 13th April, 2005. After being intimated the petitioner on 8th August, 2005 applied for the certified copy of the resolution which was supplied to him on 11th August, 2005. Thereafter, on 25th August, 2005 he filed an appeal before the Wakf Tribunal. Since according to the petitioner Rule 26 of the West Bengal Wakf Rules, 2001 provides for filing an appeal within thirty days from the date of the order, the application for condonation of delay was filed pointing out that the delay was unintentional as he came to know about the resolution on 29th July, 2005. It has been stated even if the parties know about the resolution of the Board until and unless the said resolution is communicated, the office of the Board of Wakfs does not issue certified copy of the resolution. Therefore, the petitioner had no scope to apply for the certified copy before 29th July, 2005. The appeal was filed on 25th August, 2005 even before the expiry of one month from the date of knowledge. Though application explaining the delay in filing appeal was filed, yet it was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to satisfy why he was prevented from preferring the appeal within the permitted period. Submission has been made that considering the facts and circumstances, since the delay was explained, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds.
(2.) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that under the relevant rules the petitioner is supposed to file the appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of passing the impugned resolution and not from the date of communication. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in passing the order.
(3.) Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Before dealing with the issue it is necessary set out the relevant portion of the order which is as under: - "Before going into the merit of the case I like to mention here the present position of law. Section 95 of the Wakf Act, 1995 authorises this Tribunal to entertain any appeal after the expiry of the period specified for making such appeal if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal wilhin the permitted period. Therefore, the appellant authority i.e. this Tribunal can extend the time limit for making such appeal on reasonable grounds. According to rule 26 of the West Bengal Wakf Rules, 2001 the time-limit for preferring appeal against the impugned resolution is within 30 days from the date of passing the impugned resolution. Therefore, it is clear before the Court that in the matter of filing an appeal against the impugned resolution limitation runs from the date of passing of the impugned resolution and not from the date of knowledge of the impugned resolution. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that he was unknown about the impugned resolution till 28 7.2005. But the appellant/petitioner has not given any explanation as to why he was prevented from knowing the impugned resolution just immediately after adopting the impugned resolution. The appellant/petitioner is quite silent over such matter. It is not the duty of the M. E. Committee of the Board of Wakfs to inform the party regarding its resolution or order but it is the duty of the party to know the order or resolution made by the M. E. Committee just after making such order or resolution. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as present position of law I am not satisfied with the grounds stated in the petition under Section 95 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Therefore, it can be safely held that the appellant/petitioner has totally failed to satisfy this Tribunal that he was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the instant appeal within the permitted period." (Emphasis supplied);