FARID AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Syed Aftab Ahmad and Sri Mohd. Sayeed learned Counsel appearing for the Waqf Board. The Court notices that petitions on behalf of tenants or the beneficiaries of the Waqf are frequently coming before this Court alleging mal administration in the hands of the Mutwalli or Committee of Management. May be sometimes the complaints so raised are genuine but most of the times the persons who occupy the Waqf property, bring such cases to the Court in their own interest so that their illegal actions may not be interfered with by the Committee of Management or Mutwalli and the Waqf Board may also not interfere in such matters. Such grievances cannot normally be raised before the High Court at least in the first instance as the High Court is not sitting as a superior Administrative-authority to see day today functioning of the Waqf Boards who are supposed to get the Waqf property managed in accordance with the Rules and in accordance with the provisions of the Waqf deed, if any.

(2.) If any grievance is raised, it is for the Waqf Board or competent authority to look into such a grievance and if the grievance so raised is found to be genuine to act upon it, and to pass appropriate orders. If the petitioner's grievance has already been entertained and his matter is under consideration before the Waqf Board, as informed by Sri Mohd. Sayeed, there was hardly any occasion for the petitioner to rush to this Court and seek mandamus for the said purpose. It is an abuse of the process of the Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, this order will not come in the way of Waqf Board, while entertaining or considering the grievance/objection raised by the petitioner.