The Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board cannot delegate authority to exhibit documents to unauthorized individuals, as such powers are exclusively held by the Board under the Waqf Act.

Order :

1. The instant petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 05.12.2023 (Annex.1) passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur (‘learned trial court’) in Civil Suit No.884/2014 with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that record of the case be called for and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

i. the impugned order dated 05.12.2023, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur in Civil Suit No.884/2014 (03/95) titled as "Peer Seyyad Julfikar Ali Jilani Vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf" may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondent defendant may be dismissed;

ii. any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

iii. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.”

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the year 1995, the petitioners filed a suit (Annex.1) for declaration and permanent injunction before the learned trial court with the prayer that the respondent-defendant be restrained from removing the petitioners from the post of Sajjadanashin and the Dargah Bade Peer Sahab, Nagaur be declared as a private Dargah.

2.1. The respondent-defendant filed written statement (Annex.3) on 17.03.1997 through Mr. Ata-Ur-Rahman, the then Assistant Secretary of the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf, Jaipur (‘the Waqf Board’). The learned trial court framed the issues on 01.08.2013. Subsequently, the evidence of petitioners was concluded and matter was kept for defendant’s evidence. The respondent-defendant filed affidavit dated 05.10.2019 (Annex.4) of one Mr. Sabir Hussain under Order XVIII Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). In the meanwhile the respondent- defendant filed an application dated 23.10.2021 (Annex.5) under Order VIII read with Section 151 of the CPC through Mr. Ahmad Khan (Chief Executive of the Waqf Board) for bringing on record certain documents, which was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2022 (Annex.6), whereby the document sought to be brought on record by the respondent-defendant was allowed to be taken on record. Subsequently, Mr. Sabir Hussain filed an application dated 15.09.2023 (Annex.7 colly) under Section 151 of the CPC praying therein that he may be permitted to file additional affidavit to amend the earlier affidavit (Annex.4) submitted by him under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC and also to exhibit the documents which were taken on record vide order dated 21.02.2022 (Annex.6) since he has been authorized by the respondent-defendant (the waqf board) for the same vide power of attorney dated 01.09.2023 (Annex.7 colly.). The learned trial court vide order dated 05.12.2023 (Annex.1) allowed the application (Annex.7 colly.) and permitted Sabir Hussain to file additional affidavit for the purpose of amending the earlier affidavit (Annex.4) and also permitted him to exhibit the documents that were taken on record vide order dated 21.02.2022 (Annex.6). Aggrieved by the same the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, while relying on Section 22 of the Wakf Act, 1954, that the Chief Executive Officer does not have power to delegate as the same vests with the Waqf Board. He also submitted that the Chief Executive Officer could not have delegated the power to exhibit documents on behalf of the Waqf Board (respondent-defendant herein) to Mr. Sabir Hussain coupled with the fact that Mr. Sabir Hussain is neither a member of the Waqf Board nor an officer nor a servant. He also submitted that the whole purpose of the suit as well as creation of Waqf Board will get frustrated if such powers are delegated to a private party who might have interest in the suit otherwise.