Disposed

Committee of Management Waqf Syed Karamat Ali Shah @ Line Shah Baba and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024WRIC/21271/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer holding additional charge was not in accordance with Section 23(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995, relying on a coordinate bench judgment. The State was directed to appoint a full-time Chief Executive Officer within three months, and the writ petitions were disposed of with this direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State to appoint full-time Chief Executive Officer under Section 23(1) of the Waqf Act within three months.

Committee of Management Waqf Syed Karamat Ali… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:148574-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21271 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Waqf Syed Karamat Ali Shah @ Line Shah Baba And Another

¶5

Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Punit Kumar Gupta

¶7

With

¶8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29674 of 2024

¶9

Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Waqf No 241/501 And Another

¶10

Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others

¶11

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar

¶12

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Punit Kumar Gupta

¶13

Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶14

Rejoinder and supplementary affidavits filed in respective petitions be kept on record.

¶15

Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rakesh Kumar & Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board.

¶16

Both are the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners assail the order dated June 19, 2024 passed by the State authority.

¶17

Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer by notification dated June 19, 2024 is not in

¶18

accordance with Section 23(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). He has also relied upon the judgment passed in Writ-C No.14240 of 2018 titled as Committee of Management Waqf No.47/100 Sarai Sujatkhan Shahganj, Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. and others wherein a similar kind of appointment of a person holding additional charge as Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board was held by a coordinate Bench to be illegal and non est in law.

¶19

Upon a perusal of the aforesaid judgment, we are prima facie of the view that the said judgment would categorically apply in both the cases.

¶20

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that State authorities are in the process of appointment of full time Chief Executive Officer and they are expeditiously working on the same.

¶21

In light of the above submission, we are of the view that State authorities should expeditiously complete the said process of appointment of full time Chief Executive Officer. Accordingly, the State authorities are directed to complete the said process and appoint full time Chief Executive Officer in terms of Section 23(1) of the Act within a period of three months from date.

¶22

With the above direction, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 Kuldeep

¶24

(Manjive Shukla, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Committee of Management Waqf Syed Karamat Ali Shah @ Line Shah Baba and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of Management Waqf Syed Karamat Ali Shah @ Line Shah Baba and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shanti Devi vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Another

M/S Bala Ji Traders Mandi Sthal Sitapur Thru. Proprietor Shashank Raj Sonker vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Marketing and Exports Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Ramdulari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Smt Sushma Sharma and Another vs State of Up and 5 Others

M/S Dwivedi Constructions and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiva Bio Gas Agency vs State of Up and 3 Others