Hasan Arif vs U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board Lko. Thru. Chief Executive Officer and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL No. - 98 of 2025

Hasan Arif

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board Lko Executive Officer And 2 Others	. Thru. Chief		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) :	Faisal Ahma	d Khan,	Abdul Muqeem
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	Syed Aftab Sabir Ali, Haider	Ahmad, Saiyad	Mohd. Mansoor, Mohammad Razi

¶7

Court No. - 19

¶8

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Faisal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohd. Mansoor, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri Syed Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶10

Earlier this matter was listed on 26.05.2025 and the Court was pleased to pass the following order:-

¶11

"1. Heard Shri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Faisal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Syed Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Mohammad Mansoor, Advocate and Shri Sabir Ali, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record.

¶12

2. Instant appeal has been filed under the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 83 of the Unified Management Empowerment Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1995').

¶13

3. Specific averment has been made in para 3 of the appeal that the learned Tribunal is not functional in the absence of the Chairman and consequently this Court under the aforesaid provision of the Act, 1995 would have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

¶14

FAPL No. 98 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

4. Considering the aforesaid, this Court proceeds to hear the learned counsel for the parties on the appeal.

¶17

5. Under challenge is the order dated 04.11.2024 as issued on 07.05.2025 per which application of the appellant for extension of his term as Mutawalli has been rejected on the ground of not being maintainable and the respondent No.3 has been appointed as Mutawalli.

¶18

6. The argument of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant is that a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that no reasons have been assigned by the respondent-Board as to why the application of the appellant has not been entertained with the sole exception that it was not maintainable.

¶19

7. Contention of the learned Senior Advocate is that in terms of Section 32(2)(g) of the Act, 1995, an application for extension of the term of Mutawalli would also fall within the ambit of 'appointment' of Mutawalli which aspect of the matter should have been considered by the Board while rejecting the application of the appellant.

¶20

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant prays for and is granted a week's time to bring some relevant case-law(s).

¶21

9. List this case in the first week of July, 2025.

¶22

10. Whenever the case is next listed, names of Shri Mohammad Mansoor, Advocate and Shri Sabir Ali, Advocate be shown as Counsel for Respondent."

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application filed by the appellant for appointment as Mutwalli was rejected by the respondent no.1/U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board on the ground that the application was not maintainable. He further submits that the order of rejection was passed without recording any reason.

¶24

To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Cyril Lasrado (dead) by Lrs. and ors Vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another; 2005 AIR Supreme Court 1367. The relevant Paragraph-11 is reproduced below:

¶25

FAPL No. 98 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

"Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."

¶28

(emphasis supplied)

¶29

He also placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India; AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1984. The relevant Paragraph 35 is as under:

¶30

"35. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisionmaking. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions

¶31

FAPL No. 98 of 2025

¶32

4

¶33

which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge."

¶34

(emphasis supplied)

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the direction of this Court in the order dated 26.05.2025, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No. 22480 of 2021 ( C/M Waqf Dargah Hazrat Peer Syed Mohammad Sahab (Rh and others Vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board through Chairman, Lucknow and others ), wherein it has been categorically stated that:

¶36

"We asked the counsel for the parties as to where is the provision for extension of term of committee of management or mutawalli under the Act, 1995, but none of the counsels could place before the Court any such provision nor could the Court find any such provision in the Act, 1995. The provision for appointment of a mutawalli/committee of management is Section 63, unless of course, there is a provision in this regard in the Waqf deed in which case it is governed by such deed independent of Section 63. Now, it is the admitted factual position that the petitioner's term expired initially on 22.01.2018 which was extended till 21.01.2021. This extension, in fact, was a fresh appointment, as there is no provision for extension. In this scenario, the application of the petitioner, as claimed, for extension of its term was not maintainable in the first place. At best it could be treated as an application for appointment as mutawalli of

¶37

FAPL No. 98 of 2025

¶38

5

¶39

the Waqf concerned."

¶40

In view thereof, the instant appeal is admitted.

¶41

Learned counsel for the respondents are granted four weeks' time to file their response.

¶42

List this matter on 18.02.2026.

¶43

December 11, 2025 Arjun/-

¶44

(Prashant Kumar,J.)

¶45

Digitally signed by :- ARJUN PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hasan Arif v. U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board Lko. Thru. Chief Executive Officer and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasan Arif v. U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board Lko. Thru. Chief Executive Officer and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Parvati, Kanpur Thru. Regional Manager vs Amarnath and Others

Smt. Kusuma Devi and Another vs Iffko Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Lko. Thru. Branch Manager Lko. and Another

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation , Kanpur Thru. Regional Manager vs Anjum and Others

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Regional Manager Regional Officer Hazratganj Lko. vs Smt. Sushila Bisht and 4 Others

Shyampati vs Ram Karan Pandey and 4 Others

Vimla Devi and 5 Others vs Union of India Thru. General Manager Northern Central Railway Allahabad