Writ petition against appointment of Administrator under Section 65 of Waqf Act. Court held that petitioner must file revision before Government. Petition disposed.
Petition disposed with liberty to file revision before Government.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 21450 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21450 OF 2022 (GM-WAKF)
BETWEEN:
SRI SIKANDAR BABU S/O LATE PTM KHADAR SAB AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT HOVINA PETE GULZAR MOHALLA, WARD NO.22 CHINTAMANI – 563 125.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SYED ZAHEERUDDIN BAREED., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 21450 of 2022
MULBAGAL TOWN KOLAR - 563 131.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED TIPPU SULTAN., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER DTD.11.10.2022 PASSED BY THE R-1 BEARING IMPUGNED ORDER NO.KBW/CMC/23/CBP/2010-11 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the appointment of 2nd respondent to be the Administrator of the Wakf in terms of its order dated 11.10.2022.
WP No. 21450 of 2022
file a revision petition before the Government who would consider whether the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the Administrator of the Wakf was in accordance with law or otherwise.
Karnataka State Board of Wakfs . The said judgment, though dealt with Section 65 of the Waqf Act, 1995, was a case where the Managing Committee of the Wakf was superseded by appointment of an Administrator. It is in those circumstances the Court considered the application without going into the alternative remedy of filing a revision before the Government. Therefore, the said judgment would not lend any assistance to the case of the petitioner.
“ 65. Assumption of direct management of certain [auqaf] by the Board .—(1) Where no suitable
WP No. 21450 of 2022
person is available for appointment as a mutawalli of a [waqf], or where the Board is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the filling up of the vacancy in the office of a mutawalli is prejudicial to the interests of the [waqf], the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, assume direct management of the [waqf] for such period or periods, not exceeding five years in the aggregate, as may be specified in the notification.
(2) The State Government, may, on its own motion or on the application of any person interested in the [waqf], call for the records of any case for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the notification issued by the Board under sub-section (1) and pass such orders as it may think fit and the orders so made by the State Government shall be final and shall be published in the manner specified in sub-section (1).
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of Section 65(2) of the Act, the petitioner is to approach the Government by filing a revision venting on all the contentions that he has made in the present petition. If a revision of the kind is filed, the Government is to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
WP No. 21450 of 2022
Reserving such liberty and with the aforesaid
observations, petition stands disposed.
Sd/JUDGE
BKP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can approach this Court in a writ petition instead of approaching the Government for revision in the appointment of Administrator.
Whether the principle in Astan-E-Khadri Trust is applicable to the present case regarding appointment under Section 65 of the Waqf Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Asthan-E-Khadri Trust and others vs. Karnataka State Board of WakfsDistinguished¶29
ILR 2000 KAR 801 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Sikandar Babu
The Karnataka State Board of AuqaF
Mr. Abbas Khan
M. Nagaprashna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
