53-CRA-138-2022.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 138 OF 2022 Ismail Dawood Bismillah and Another … Applicants Vs. The Presiding Officer Maharashtra … Respondents State Waqf Tribunal and Others Mr. A. A. Maniyar for the Applicants. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Yakub Kotwala for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Alizain Patel a/w. Mr. Sajjad Patel i/b. Patel Associates for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 14th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER : 1. This civil revision application is filed by the original respondent nos. 5 and 6 before the Waqf Tribunal. The applicants challenge the order passed by the tribunal setting aside the order of the Waqf Board and remanding the matter back with a direction to decide the application before the board after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 3. 2. Respondent no. 3 claims to be the grandson of the original settlor of the Waqf. The main objection before the 1/4 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2025.11.26 17:05:07 +0530 53-CRA-138-2022.docx tribunal was that while permitting addition of names of the present petitioners as trustees (Mutawallis) respondent no. 3 was not heard by the Waqf Board. The tribunal has therefore remanded the file back to the board for deciding it afresh by conducting inquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent no.3. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants raised objection to the order of remand mainly on the ground that respondent no. 3 who is a foreign citizen cannot be added as Mutawalli. He relies upon the provision of Section 3(1) of The Waqf Act, 1955. He therefore submits that the Waqf Board has rightly accepted the change report. He further points out that it was never the case of respondent no. 3 that he is an interested person. Hence, if that question was raised the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to point out that respondent no. 3 would also not be an interested person. He submits that the application before the Waqf Tribunal was filed on the ground that respondent no. 3 is a Mutawalli and thus the impugned order without considering whether respondent no.3 was an interested person has set aside the order of the Waqf Board and remanded the matter for fresh 2/4 53-CRA-138-2022.docx inquiry. He therefore submits that the matter be remanded to the tribunal for deciding whether respondent no. 3 would be an interested person. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 supports the impugned order and submits that there were serious allegations against the petitioners regarding the breaches committed by them. He further submits that he is the grandson of the original settlor and therefore would be an interested person. He submits that no prejudice would be caused to any party, if the Waqf Board holds fresh inquiry for deciding the change report. 5. I have perused the impugned order. The tribunal has set aside the order of the board and directed a fresh inquiry based on the objections raised on the validity of the resolution. No findings of the tribunal is seen holding that respondent no. 3 is a Muttawalli. With regard to the locus the tribunal has observed in paragraph 13 of the impugned order that even a person interested in a Waqf can apply before the tribunal. Since respondent no. 3 claims to be the grandson of settlor of the Waqf, I do not find any fault in the observations of the tribunal in entertaining the application 3/4 53-CRA-138-2022.docx filed by respondent no.3. The tribunal has set aside the order of Waqf Board accepting the change report and remanded the matter back to the Waqf Board with a direction to restore the file and hold a fresh inquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 3. No prejudice is caused to any party in view of the impugned order. There is no error or any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this court by exercising powers under sub- section (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The Civil Revision Application is therefore dismissed. 7. By the impugned order the tribunal had directed to decide and complete the proceeding within six months from the date of the order. The impugned order is of 2021. Hence, the Waqf Board shall decide the proceeding as expeditiously as possible, as directed by the tribunal. The parties shall co-operate for early disposal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment before the Waqf Board. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 4/4