New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday adjourned, to March 15, the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB)’s petition challenging the Centre’s decision to absolve the board from all matters related to 123 properties, which have been under dispute for a long time.
Earlier, the high court had asked the DWB to file a different petition challenging the Centre’s decision.
A single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri had declined to pass an urgent order in an application moved by the Board for a pending petition against the Central government’s decision to delist the 123 properties.
The Board had filed a petition last year.
Senior advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for the Board, had argued that properties have been in possession with the statutory authority and termed the Centre’s decision “blatantly illegal”.
The counsel sought a status quo in the matter till next hearing, but his prayer was opposed by the Centre.
During the hearing, Justice Ohri also said that the court can’t pass such an order at this stage without hearing the other side, and listed the matter for hearing next week.
“I have to hear them also…. nothing is going to happen. For the interim relief, do I not hear them?,” he said.
On February 8, the Waqf Board had filed an application challenging the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs’ letter.
Mehra had earlier argued that there is no source of power with the Centre to “absolve” the Board from the above-mentioned properties.
“If you do not have the power, you can’t do anything under the statutory scheme,” he had said.
“Since 1911 and thereafter till date, when the letter has come up, these properties are admittedly waqf properties, concerned with the Waqf Board, to be controlled and managed by the board under the Act (Delhi Waqf Act),” he had added.
He had stated that according to the complete statutory scheme, there is no concept of the Central or State government to absolve the properties from the Board.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, had submitted that the Board’s prayers in the application are totally beyond the scope of the pending petition.
He had cited various orders passed by the court dismissing the Board’s application seeking stay of the two-member committee, looking into the status of the properties, and a revision plea.
Sharma had said: “Once given report of the committee is under challenge, we will meet this. It cannot be done by this application. That is a substantive writ petition.”
–IANS
Comments are closed.