IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA th ON THE 15 OF MARCH, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 5395 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

HALIM KHAN S/O LATE MR. NAIM KHAN, AGED 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED PROFESSOR AND SOCIAL ACTIVIST 7, RAJKUMAR MILL CAMPUS, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI S.A.ALI WARSI, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, VALLABH BHAVAN, ARERA HILL, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIR, VINDHYANCHAL BHAWAN ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. CHAIRMAN, MADHYA PRADESH WAQF BOARD, TAJ CAMPUS NEAR TAJ UL MASAJID, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SAYEDNA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN DAR UL MUTALLAQ, HEAD OF DAUDI BOHRA SHIA COMMUNITY, SAIFEE MAHAL MALABAR HILLS MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ANIKET NAIK, DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 & 2/STATE).

This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind Signature Not Verified Dharmadhikari passed the following:

ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the following reliefs:

a) To pass an order to initiate an inquiry against the respondents through a court monitored committee for investigation of monetary fraud and loss of public money.

b) To pass an order against Respondent No.3 to table the documents, audit reports and receipts of annual contribution along with loss incurred due to Respondent no.4 before the general public and this Court.

c) To pass an order regarding validity of Mutawalli as a manager or caretaker of a single waqf property.

d) To pass an order to declare that a mutawalli can never act as a sole trustee.

e) And/or to pass such other or further order as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is aggrieved with the issue regarding appointment of respondent No.4 as a Sole Trustee of Shia Daudi Bohra Auqaf in Madhya Pradesh. In the State of Madhya Pradesh there is different identity of Waqf for Shia and Sunni community. Therefore, all the administration of the Waqf properties is vested in the State. In the present case, respondent No. 4 has been appointed as successor of the erstwhile Dai-Ul- Mutalaq of Shia Daudi Bohra Community vide order dated 26.02.2014. In view of the aforesaid, the act of respondent No. 3 in appointing respondent No.4 is violative of Sections 44, 46, 47 and 72 of the Waqf Act, 1995. The respondent No. 4 has violated the principles of inheritance within the limits of Waqf and also created series of fraud by not paying the appropriate annual contribution to respondent no. 3. The act of authorities concerned demonstrate their partisan Signature Not Verified attitude in dealing with this particular issue by giving an outright and illegal benefit to respondent No.4. The appointment of respondent No.4 as a Sole Trustee violates the settled principles of law wherein a Mutawalli does not even hold a proper position of trustee, rather he is merely a manager. Therefore, appointment of respondent No.4 is void ab initio. The act of respondents has lead into huge loss to the community within the State to the tune of more than Rs. 400 crores. Hence, this PIL.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has not given his complete antecedents and has also not disclosed as to what public interest work he has performed for the Society. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others[2019 (1) M.P.L.J. 75] to contend that the petitioner has failed to produce on record to satisfaction of the Court su