3 min readNew DelhiMay 28, 2024 04:50 PM IST
First published on: May 28, 2024 at 04:50 PM IST
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea to quash the appointment of the Delhi Waqf Board administrator, observing that the plea was an “absolute abuse of the process of law.”
A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, in its May 24 order, observed, “This Court does not find any reason to quash the appointment of Respondent No.2 (administrator). 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”.
It also imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the petitioner to be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks from the order date. The order was passed in a plea moved by Yamin Ali, a resident of Mehrauli. He claimed that he was aggrieved by several actions taken by the board administrator and thus sought quashing of his appointment.
The high court dismissed the plea noting that the petition did not give any “valid reasons” for seeking quashing of the appointment of the administrator of the Delhi Waqf Board. It observed that on January 10, the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Minority Affairs Branch of the Delhi government, issued an order appointing the administrator of the Waqf Board until the Board is reconstituted.
“Other than stating that the actions of Respondent No.2 (Administrator) 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,” the order noted.
Ali stated that his mother was buried in the graveyard adjacent to the historic Akhoundji Mosque. He claimed the Delhi Waqf Board classified this property as a Waqf property. He said that some portion of the mosque had been demolished under the authority of the administrator who “ought to have protected the mosque as custodian of the Delhi Waqf Board” and hence should be removed as the administrator of the Board as he had “failed in his duty” to protect a Waqf property.
The high court observed that the petitioner had previously filed another petition with the very same allegations. The court had previously suggested to the petitioner’s counsel that the actions be challenged before the Tribunal under the Waqf Act, and after that, the earlier petition was withdrawn.
“However, after withdrawing the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has once again filed the very same writ petition with the very same allegations,” the high court said.
It further said that, as per the material on record, the decision to demolish the structure is referred to in the Minutes of the January 2 meeting, and it is for the petitioner to challenge these minutes and the decision taken therein “rather than challenging the appointment of Respondent No.2 as an Administrator.”
The court said the petitioner can always approach the Waqf Board to challenge the administrator’s actions or file a petition challenging specific actions in this regard, which has been done in several other petitions pending before the high court.
It also imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the petitioner to be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks from the order date. File photo 
Share
