Md. Ibrahim Khan & Anr. vs Sayed Anees Ahmed & Ors.

By the Bench;

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

There is a delay of four days in filing the Review Petition.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.

The IA is disposed of.

This Review Petition is taken up for final disposal on the request of learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners in this Review Petition seek review of order dated 8^th July, 2026 (Annexure-5) by which, W.P.(C). No.11470 of 2026 was disposed of. They further pray for a direction to declare the notice dated 29^th July, 2026 and subsequent notice dated 4^th August, 2026 to be illegal in the eye of law.

Mr. Samantaray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Review Petitioners submits that W.P.(C). No.11470 of 2026 was filed by the Opposite Party No.1 suppressing the material facts. It was alleged in the said writ petition that there is no Managing Committee of Jamia Masjid, Berhampur (for brevity ‘the Institution’). The tenure of the previous Managing Committee of the Institution expired on 28^th February, 2026 and subsequently, pursuant to the meeting dated 16^th March, 2026, new Managing Committee has already been constituted, which is in management of the Institution and its Waqf. However, W.P.(C). No.11470 of 2026 was disposed of on 8^th July, 2026 by an innocuous order directing as under:-

(Emphasis supplied)

The Administrator, who is In-Charge of the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Board of Waqf, Kataka, without applying its mind, issued notice dated 29^th July, 2026 (Annexure-6) for constitution of a new Managing Committee for the management and administration of the Institution and its Waqfs. Being aggrieved, the review Petitioners filed W.P.(C). No.24698 of 2026, which was disposed of vide order dated 7^th August, 2026 (Annexure-7) with the following observation :-

In view of the observations made by this Court in W.P.(C). No.24698 of 2026, this Review Petition has been filed.

Delay in filing the Review Petition has already been condoned.

It is further submitted by Mr. Samantaray, learned Senior Advocate that the review Petitioners, who are in management of the Institution and its Waqf, were not impleaded as parties to W.P.(C). No.11470 of 2026 filed by Opposite Party No.1 (Review Petition). The Administrator-cum-Chief Executive Officer also could not appreciate that this Court had directed to consider the grievance of Opposite Party No.1 in accordance with law. Without providing opportunity of hearing to the review Petitioners, who are in management of the Institution, the Administrator, vide impugned notice under Annexure-6, straightway proceeded to reconstitute the Managing Committee. It is further submitted by Mr. Samantaray, learned Senior Advocate that in the body of the order dated 7^th August, 2026 passed in W.P.(C). No.24698 of 2026, the Coordinate Bench proceeded on a footing that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C). No.11470 of 2026, the Waqf Tribunal rendered a judgment dated 20^th July, 2026 pursuant to which, notice was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Board of Waqf, Kataka for convening a meeting for reconstitution of the Managing Committee. The subject matter of dispute before the Tribunal was not constitution/reconstitution of the Managing Committee, but it was for eviction of the brother of Opposite Party No.1, who was in unauthorized occupation of the Waqf (the shop room). The said order was enclosed to W.P.(C). No.24698 of 2026 to bring to the notice of the Coordinate Bench that being vindictive of order of eviction of his brother, the previous writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C). No.11470 of 2026 was filed. He further submits that instead of reviewing the order dated 8^th July, 2026 by which W.P.(C). No.11470 of 2026, a clarification to provide an opportunity of hearing to the review Petitioners by the Administrator-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Board of Waqf, Kataka before taking a decision with regard to reconstitution of the Managing Committee would serve the interest of justice.

Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 vehemently objects to the submission made by learned Senior Advocate. It is his submission that the review Petitioners on receipt of notice under Annexure-6 could have appeared before the Chief Executive Officer and raised their grievance, if any, with regard to reconstitution of the Managing Committee. Instead of doing that, they straightway filed W.P.(C). No.24698 of 2026 before this Court, which created all confusions. He further submits that the notice dated 28^th February, 2026 and subsequent minutes of the meeting enclosed to the said letter so also letter dated 20^th March, 2026 as well as reminder dated 31^st July, 2026 are afterthought and manufactured to make out a cause of action in favour of the review Petitioners in W.P.(C). No.24698 of 2026. He further submits that this Court, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.11470 of 2026, did not delve into the merit of the case of the Opposite Party No.1 (Petitioner in the said writ petition) and directed him to raise his grievance before the Administrator-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Board of Waqf, Kataka. In that view of the matter, the Review Petition merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that while disposing of W.P.(C). No.11470 of 2026 vide order dated 8^th July, 2026 (as reproduced above), this Court did not delve into the merit of the case of the Opposite Party No.1.

In obedience to the said direction of this Court, the Administrator-cum-chief Executive Officer, Odisha Board of Waqf, Kataka issued notice under Annexure-6 to all concerned, including the Review Petitioners. The Review Petitioners, instead of raising their objection before the Chief Executive Officer, filed W.P.(C) No.24698 of 2026 assailing the said notice and for other consequential relief. Since the Chief Executive Officer, in obedience to the order passed in W.P.(C). No.11470 of 2026, issued notice under Annexure-6, this Court is of the view that the order passed therein does not warrant review.

Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1, at this stage, submits that since the Review Petitioners did not respond to the notice dated 29^th July, 2026 under Annexure-6, a subsequent notice was issued on 4^th August, 2026 and on 19^th August, 2026 a meeting was convened by the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Board of Waqf, Kataka. The review Petitioners have already appeared before the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Board of Waqf, Kataka and filed their objection, which is pending for consideration. Mr. Samantaray, learned Senior Advocate, however, submits that he has no instruction about the same.

In view of the above, this Court, in order to resolve the dispute between the parties, disposes of the Review Petition with a direction that the Petitioners, Opposite Party No.1 and all concerned may appear before the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Board of Waqf, Kataka on 7^th September, 2026 on which date, the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Board of Waqf, Kataka shall do well to give opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned before taking a final decision for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the Institution and its Waqf for proper management and administration.

With the aforesaid observation and clarification, the Review Petition is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of the judgment be granted on proper application.