IMPORTANT POINT
Such shocking and outrageous judgments/orders as passed by Single Judge in the instant case shake the faith of the common man in Judiciary to the core.

Headnote:(a) Territorial Jurisdiction – Cause of action arising within territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench – Allahabad Bench could not have entertained petition in respect of such area. (Para 10)
        AIR 1976 SC 331 – Relied upon
        (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Normally n writ lies against a private party. (Para 10)
        (c) Administration of Justice – By an interim order the final relief should not be granted. (Para 10)
        AIR 1992 SC 671; JT 2004(8) SC 264 – Relied upon
        (d) Administration of Justice – Judicial Propriety – Integrity – Kith and kin of Judges practicing at the same Bar becoming millionaires within a short time – Raises doubts about integrity of Judges – Chief Justice requested to do the needful. (Paras 15 to 18)
       Facts of the case:
        1. There is a Dargah known as ‘Dargah Hazrat Syed Salar Masood Ghazi R.A.’ in district Bahraich, U.P. which is managed by the Committee of Management of Waqf no.19.
        2. In the aforesaid dargah a Mela is held in the month of Jeth, known as ‘Jeth Mela’, Bahraich for a period of 40 days.
        3. It is alleged by the petitioner that in the past several years the Waqf has been allotting plot nos.1760 to 1770 and 1826 to 1834 belonging to it on lease to the petitioner for holding the Jeth Mela.
        4. However, in 2010 the Waqf refused to allot the said land for Jeth Mela to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner twice filed writ petitions in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court which were dismissed. It may be mentioned that Bahraich is a district in erstwhile Avadh, which is under the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court. He filed the writ petition being Writ Petition no.34595 of 2010 in the
        5. Allahabad Bench of the High Court on which the ex-parte interim orders dated 11.6.2010 and 18.6.2010 were passed by the Single Judge of the Allahabad Bench of the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. “Something is rotten in the State of Denmark”, said Shakespeare in Hamlet, and it can similarly be said that something is rotten in the Allahabad High Court, as this case illustrates.

3. This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment passed by a division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dated 5.8.2010 in Special Appeal No. 973 of 2010. By that judgment the ex-parte interim orders of the Single Judge of the High Court dated 11.6.2010 and 18.6.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 34595/2010 have been set aside.

4. The brief facts of the case are that there is a Dargah known as ‘Dargah Hazrat Syed Salar Masood Ghazi R.A.’ in district Bahraich, U.P. which is managed by the Committee of Management of Waqf no.19.

5. The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of circuses e.g. Great Gemini Circus, Apollo Circus, Raj Mahal Circus and Asiad Circus, and also runs a Jhoola (cradle) for entertaining the public at large. The petitioner does touring and runs the aforesaid circuses and jhoola in ‘Melas’ and other places of public gathering.

6. In the aforesaid dargah a Mela is held in the month of Jeth, known as ‘Jeth Mela’, Bahraich for a period of 40 days. It is alleged by the petitioner that in the past several years the Waqf has been allotting plot nos.1760 to 1770 and 1826 to 1834 belonging to it on lease to the petitioner for holding the Jeth Mela. However, in 2010 the Waqf refused to allot the said land for Jeth Mela to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner twice filed writ petitions in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court which were dismissed. It may be mentioned that Bahraich is a district in erstwhile Avadh, which is under the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court.

7. The petitioner then filed a suit in district Hamirpur being Suit no.54/70/10 of 2010 and when an objection was raised about territorial jurisdiction he filed the writ petition being Writ Petition no.34595 of 2010 in the Allahabad Bench of the High Court on which the ex-parte interim orders dated 11.6.2010 and 18.6.2010 were passed by the Single Judge of the Allahabad Bench of the High Court.

8. The order of the single Judge dated 11.6.2010 reads as follows :

“Issue notice to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

The said respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within 6 weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter.

The grievance of the petitioner is that for the last several years the petitioner is allotted land for installing Circus, Jhoola, Merry go round, swing for amusement area for the children and visitors of Mela in the premises of Dargah Sharif during the annual Urs in the month of Jeth (May and June).

Accordingly the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to allot land in the Mela at waqf No. 19, Dargah Sharif, Bahraich over Plot Nos. 1760 to 1770 and 1826 to 1884, details of which have been given in the writ petition, to the petitioner for the purpose of running Circus, Jhoola, Merry go round swing etc. If the petitioner pays required rent lease, the possession of the allocated land shall be handed over the petitioner within 3 days.

Order Date:- 11.06.2010".

The order dated 18.6.2010 reads as follows :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the grievance that despite earlier order of this Court dated 11.6.2010, the petitioner has not been allotted land in the Mela area. The very purpose of filing the writ petition would be frustrated if the petitioner is not allotted the land for running circus/Jhula in the Meal area.

The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich are directed to pass appropriate order in compliance of the order of this court dated 11.6.2010, since the petitioner has not been allotted land in the Mela area. The very purpose of filing the writ petition would be frustrated if the petitioner is not allotted the land for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 1148

2010 (8) Supreme 188SUPREME COURT OF INDIAMarkandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ. Raja Khan — PetitionerversusU.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board & Anr. — RespondentsSpecial Leave Petition(Civil) No. 31797 of 2010Decided on : 26-11-2010

IMPORTANT POINT Such shocking and outrageous judgments/orders as passed by Single Judge in the instant case shake the faith of the common man in Judiciary to the core.

Cases Referred (3)

2010 (8) Supreme 188
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Raja Khan — Petitioner
versus
U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board & Anr. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 31797 of 2010
Decided on : 26-11-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Such shocking and outrageous judgments/orders as passed by Single Judge in the instant case shake the faith of the common man in Judiciary to the core.