IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that a petitioner must demonstrate a direct injury or violation of legal rights to have locus standi to challenge an act, and waiver of specific rights may impact the petitioner's standing in the case.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner who is stated to be a Joint Mutawalli of Haji Elahi Baksh Waqf Estate is before this Court being aggrieved with the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the other Joint Mutawalli of the said Waqf Estate by the respondent No. 4 vide the impugned letter dated 12-10-2021. Though the petitioner has not raised the issue of right, entitlement or fitness of the respondent No. 3 to be appointed as Joint Mutawalli, challenge to the impugned order has been made basically on two grounds, first that the impugned order has been issued contrary to the provisions of the Waqf Act and second that the petitioner was not heard before issuance of the impugned order.

2. When this instant matter was taken up for consideration, the respondents herein had raised the question of the maintainability of the writ petition. The locus of the petitioner was questioned, and the fact of availability of alternate remedy under Section 83 (2) of the Waqf Act of 1995, in such matters, was highlighted. It has also been contended that no cause of action has been disclosed; that there has been no violation of the rights of the petitioner; that the writ petitioner has filed the instant writ petition only to espouse the cause of his own nephew; and that the petitioner had no role to play in the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Joint Mutawalli. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the matter has a long-standing history of litigation and had travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which by order dated 26-09-2019, set in motion the process for appointment of a Joint Mutawalli. The writ petitioner, it is contended at that point of time in the said proceedings before the Supreme Court had shown his disinclination to nominate the Joint Mutawalli as provided under the terms of the Waqf Deed.

3. In this backdrop, it would therefore be more expedient if the challenge to maintainability is taken up first, before embarking upon the main matter. However, as it has been pointed out to this Court that there has been a long history of litigation, wherein orders have been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court, this aspect and the purport and impact of those orders would necessarily also have to be looked into.

4. The subject matter is with regard to a Waqf, which was established by Late Haji Elahi Baksh on 09-11-1936 and formalized through a Waqf Deed dated 11-11-1936. It appears that with regard to appointment as a Joint Mutawalli for the said Waqf, from the line or descendants of one Kammu Mia, one Md. Taiyab had instituted a case being Waqf Case No. 1 of 2002, before the Hon'ble Waqf Tribunal, Shillong, and in this was joined by the respondent No. 3 herein, as an intervenor with a similar prayer that he be appointed as Joint Mutawalli. Both these petitions were rejected by the Waqf Tribunal by judgment dated 19-07-2006, and this order was then taken before the High Court by way of Writ Petition and Civil Revision Petition respectively. By a common order dated 25-07-2007 the High Court upheld the orders of the Waqf Tribunal, which in turn was appealed again before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of an SLP. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP by order dated 13-12-2007, however, with an observation that the question of law is left open. Subsequent to the dismissal of the SLP, one Md. Abrar, a descendant of Kammu Mia, then approached the Waqf Tribunal with a prayer for appointment as Mutawalli of the Waqf. The petition came to be dismissed and the order of dismissal was put to challenge before this Court in CRP. No. 15 (SH) of 2008. The said civil revision then was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28-01-2009.

5. The aforesaid judgment was then taken on appeal by Md. Abrar before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 4025 of 2010, and the same was disposed of by judgment dated 26-09- 2019. It appears that with this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the path for appoi