Delhi High Court: In a petition filed for quashing the appointment of Respondent 2 as administrator of the Delhi Waqf Board, as he failed in his duty to protect a Waqf Property, Subramonium Prasad*, J., while dismissing the petition held that this writ petition was an absolute abuse of the process of law, as there was no valid reason given regarding why the appointment of the Administrator of the Delhi Waqf Boards should be quashed. The Court further imposed the cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner which needs to be deposited with the Armed Forced Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks.
Background:
In an instant case, the petitioner was the resident of Mehrauli, Delhi and stated that his mother was buried in the graveyard adjacent to the historic Akhoundji Mosque. The petitioner claimed that the said property was classified as a Waqf property with the Delhi Waqf Property. Some portion of the Waqf property was demolished under authority of the respondent 2, who was a custodian of Delhi Waqf Boards and Waqf Properties.
Analysis:
The Court, after perusal of facts and contention raised, noted that the petitioner previously filed a W.P.(C) 3293/2024 with the very same allegations. As there was an alternative efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner. The petitioner withdrew the said Writ Petition. Later, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition again with the same averments and approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
The Court further noted that, other than stating the actions of respondent 2 were bad, no reason had been given by the petitioner on why he lacks the qualification to be appointed as an Administrator of the Waqf Board.
The Court stated that, “This Writ Petition is an absolute abuse of the process of law without giving any valid reasons as to why the appointment of Respondent No.2 as an Administrator of the Delhi Waqf Board should be quashed.”
The Court then dismissed the writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on the Petitioner which needs to be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks.
The decision for demolition of the structure was referred to in the Minutes of Meeting dated 02-01-2024 and it is for the petitioner to challenge the said Minutes of Meeting and the decision taken therein rather than challenging the appointment of respondent 2 as an Administrator. The Court stated that the petitioner was always open to approach the Waqf Board for Challenging the actions of the Administrator or file a petition challenging specific action in this regard.
[Yamin Ali v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3972, Decided on: 24-05-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case :
By Petitioner: Shams Khwaja, Advocate.
By Respondents: Mehak Nakra, ASC; Aditi Kapoor, Advocates for R1 and R2; Santosh Kumar, S.O (M.A) on behalf of R2; Shobhana Takiar, St. Counsel; Sanjay Katyal, St. Counsel for DDA; Razia and Kuljeet Singh, Advocates for R3; Yoginder Handoo and Ashwin Kataria, Advocates for R4