Back
2003 Supreme(All) 1022
2003 (5) AWC 3469
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.
C.M.W.P. No. 11449 of 1998
Decided on May 6, 2003
Waqf Dargah Shah Mohammad and others
Versus
U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, Lucknow and others
Counsel for the Petitioners: S. A. Gilani, Yogesh Agarwal, R. N. Singh G. K. Singh, S. F. A. Naqvi and U. N. Sharma.
Counsel for the Respondents: W. H. Khan, Ikram Ahmad, J. H. Khan, Haidar Hussain and S.C.
The main legal point established is the availability of an alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal as per the Waqf Act, 1995, Section 83, and the wide jurisdiction and power of the Waqf Tribunal to grant interim orders.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Waqf Management Dispute - Waqf Act, 1995, Section 83 - The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal. The interim order passed by the court was to continue for a period of two months to enable the petitioner to approach the Waqf Tribunal for interim orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent removal from the control and management of certain waqf properties. The petitioner alleged conspiracy and fraudulent actions by the U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf and sought to challenge various orders and resolutions related to the appointment and renewal of the Committee of Management.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that highly disputed questions of fact were involved and deemed it expedient for the petitioner to seek alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal, as per the Waqf Act, 1995, Section 83. The court also noted the jurisdiction and power of the Waqf Tribunal to grant interim orders.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged conspiracy, fraudulent actions, and the legality of orders and resolutions related to the management of waqf properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the availability of an alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal, as provided under the Waqf Act, 1995, Section 83, and the wide scope of the Waqf Tribunal's jurisdiction and power to grant interim orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal, with the continuation of the interim order for two months to allow the petitioner to approach the Waqf Tribunal for interim relief.
M. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to remove or dispossess the petitioner from the control and management of the properties of waqf Nos. 4 to 11 Waqf Dargah Mulla Syed Mohammadi Shah, Allahabad. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the orders dated 15.7.1985, 17.12.1997 and the resolution of the Board dated 4.5.2000 communicated by the order dated 5.5.2000 vide Annexures-S.A. 2, S.A. 3 and S.A. 4 to the supplementary-affidavit.
3. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner No. 1 is managing committee of the property Nos. 4 to 11 of the aforesaid waqf and other petitioners are members of the management committee. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) removed the petitioners committee by order dated 30.5.1979 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. True copy of the order dated 30.5.1979 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Board appointed a new committee whose members are mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the order dated 30.5.1979 was the result of conspiracy of certain interested persons including the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 with the officers of the Board who had been heavily bribed. The petitioner challenged the order dated 30.5.1979 which was quashed by the Civil Judge, Allahabad by order dated 1.9.1987 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is alleged that thereafter nothing had happened and the petitioners continued discharging their duties as members and office-bearers of the Committee of Management and are in possession and control over the property of the waqf property. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioners came to know that some order was passed ex parte by some officers of the Waqf Board by which the earlier committee has been renewed. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that after the judgment dated 1.9.1987 no notice was given to the petitioners before passing the said order. It is alleged in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that the petitioner committee has not been removed but the earlier Committee of Management has been renewed by Mr. Anis Ansari who is no more authority under the law to do so. It is alleged that whatever has been done by the respondents specially by Mr. Anis Ansari was done behind the back of the petitioner for extraneous consideration.
4. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner received letter dated 6.11.1997 from the Waqf Inspector, Allahabad informing him that the Chief Executive Officer, U. P. Sunni Central Board Waqf, Lucknow by letter dated 13.10.1997 has informed the Waqf Inspector, Allahabad that the charge has not been handed over by the petitioner to the Committee of Management through its Secretary Syed Rashid Hussain. The petitioner immediately protested and sent his representation dated 20.2.1998 stating that the proceeding against the petitioner were taken behind the back of the petitioner and the whole act of the respondents were fraudulent. True copy of the representation is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 20 of the writ petition that though no order has been served on the petitioner for removing the petitioner from his office but in connivance with Anis Ansari, Rashid Hussain is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the office. If there is any order the same is ex parte and behind the back of the petitioner. It is alleged that the action of the respondent is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal.
5. The petitioner was permitted to amend the petition and by this amendment the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.7.1985 by which the new Committee of Management has been appointed by the President of the Board.
