Yamin Ali v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the appointment of Respondent No.2 as the Administrator of Delhi Waqf Board.

2. The Petitioner claims that he is a resident of the ancient city of Mehrauli that now forms part of New Delhi. It is stated that the Petitioner's mother is buried in the graveyard adjacent to the historic Akhoundji Mosque, a property which the Petitioner claims is a property classified as a Waqf Property with the Delhi Waqf Board. Some portion of which has been demolished under authority of Respondent No.2 who ought to have protected the mosque as custodian of the Delhi Waqf Board as hence should be removed as the Administrator of Delhi Waqf Board as he has failed in his duty to protect a Waqf Property. The Petitioner states that he is aggrieved by several actions taken by Respondent No.2 as an Administrator of the Delhi Waqf Board and therefore he states that the appointment of the Respondent No.2 must be quashed.

3. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner had filed W.P.(C) 3293/2024 with very same allegations. Since what was challenged was the actions taken by Respondent No.2, this Court has suggested to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the actions can be challenged before the Tribunal under the Waqf Act, and accordingly the Petitioner withdrew the said Writ Petition. The Order dated 04.03.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3293/2024 by which the Petitioner withdrew the writ petition, reads as under:-

pending application(s), if any.”

4. The Petitioner has once again filed a Writ Petition with the very same averments and has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently attacked the actions of Respondent No.2 to contest that Respondent No.2 should not continue as the Administrator of the Delhi Waqf Board.

6. Section 99 of the Waqf Act gives the power to appoint Administrator to supersede the Waqf Board. Section 99 of the Waqf Act,1995, reads as under:-

unless there is a prima facie evidence of financial irregularity, misconduct or violation of the provisions of this Act.] (2) Upon the publication of a notification under subsection (1) superseding the Board,— (a) all the members of the Board shall, as from the date of supersession, vacate their offices as such members; (b) all the powers and duties which may, by or under the provisions of this Act, be exercised or performed by or on behalf of the Board shall, during the period of supersession, be exercised and performed by such person or persons as the State Government may direct; and

(c) all properties vested in the Board shall, during the period of supersession vest in the State Government. (3) On the expiration of the period of supersession specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1), the State Government may— [(a) extend the period of supersession by another six months with reasons to be recorded in writing and, the period of continuous supersession shall not exceed more than a year; or] (b) reconstitute the Board in the manner provided in section 14. "

7. Vide Order dated 10.01.2024 issued by the office of Divisional Commissioner, Minority Affairs Branch, GNCTD, Respondent No.2 has been appointed as an Administrator of the Waqf Board till the time the Board is re-constituted.

8. Other than stating that the actions of Respondent No.2 are bad, no reason has been given by the Petitioner why Respondent No.2 lacks in qualification to be appointed as an Administrator of the Waqf Board. The Petitioner has attempted to give a communal flavour to the actions of Respondent No.2.

9. The very same Counsel who appeared on behalf of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3293/2024 was told that action is the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal and the Petitioner must approach the Tribunal, the Petitioner withdrew the said writ petition to challenge the action of the Administrator. However, after withdrawing the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has once again filed the very same writ petition with the very same allegations.

10. This Court does not find any reason to quash the appointment of Respondent No.2. It cannot be said that Respondent No.2 is not qualified to be appointed as an Administrator. This Writ Petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and is a publicity-oriented litigation.