Dismissed

C/M Waqf No. 51/110 Masjid Saudagrann Sabzi Mandi, Bahadurgang, Prayagraj and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023WRIC/38616/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court examined a writ petition seeking to quash an order regarding the management of Masjid Saudagrann. The court dismissed the petition on grounds of alternative remedy, sparing itself from deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed as an efficacious alternative remedy exists under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

C/M Waqf No. 51/110 Masjid Saudagrann… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38616 of 2022 Petitioner :- C/M Waqf No. 51/110 Masjid Saudagrann Sabzi Mandi, Bahadurgang, Prayagraj And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kamal Krishna Roy,Prabal Pratap,Punit Kumar Gupta

¶2

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶4

The present petition is preferred inter alia for the following relief:-

¶5

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure No. 1) and consequential office memorandum dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure No. 3).

¶6

(II) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite parties /respondents not to interfere in the working and management of the Waqf by the Committee of Petitioner.

¶7

III. Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent no. 1 to decide the representation dated 28.1.2022 (Annexure No. 17) and pass a reasoned and speaking order after conducting an enquiry."

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents have raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that in case petitioners are having any grievance they have alternative remedy under section 83 of The Wakf Act, 1995, and the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an efficacious remedy.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, once the efficacious remedy is available under section 83 of The Wakf Act, 1995, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition on account of efficacious alternative remedy,

¶10

accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶11

However, it is always open to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal under section 83 of The Wakf Act, 1995, if so advised.

¶12

Needless to say that this Court has not given any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.2.2023

¶14

Bhanu

¶15

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

C/M Waqf No. 51/110 Masjid Saudagrann Sabzi Mandi, Bahadurgang, Prayagraj and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Waqf No. 51/110 Masjid Saudagrann Sabzi Mandi, Bahadurgang, Prayagraj and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajpal Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Aashish Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Manju Yadav Vs the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Mau and Another

Munshi Lal Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Niwas Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Murat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others