MD. SULAIMAN Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The most startling feature of this matter is the aggressive conduct of the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board in the State who appears to be more keen to support the cause of the private respondent than the private respondent himself.

(2.) Ordinarily, in matters of the present kind when there is a fight between two private parties and the order of an authority is assailed, the authority does not take a stand, even to sustain its order so that the indifference and impartiality of the relevant authority is not called into question. However, the order passed by the CEO of the State Waqf Board has been sought to be aggressively sustained by the CEO himself without the private respondent, the person likely to be affected if the order impugned is annulled, taking as much interest in the matter as the CEO of the Waqf Board.

(3.) The appeal is directed against a judgment and order of June 17, 2022 by which the appellant's writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant may not have had the locus standi to question the propriety of an order dated October 12, 2021 passed by the CEO of the Meghalaya State Waqf Board. By the relevant order of October 12, 2021, the CEO appointed Md. Zakaria, the private respondent herein, to be the successor to the joint mutawalliship of the Haji Elahi Baksh Waqf Estate from Haji Kammu Mia's line. The primary ground urged by the appellant-writ petitioner in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was that the CEO did not and could not have had the authority to pass the order as the direction contained in this Court's order of September 20, 2021, which is referred to in the CEO's order dated October 12, 2021, required the Waqf Board - and not its CEO - to pass the relevant order.