SULAIMAN Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(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 dtd. 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 Sec. 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 dtd. 26/9/2019, 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.