Lawyers’ group files PIL against appointment of Delhi Government officer Ashwani Kumar as Waqf Board Administrator

The bench was also informed that another petition with a similar prayer challenging the administrator’s appointment was pending before a single judge bench of the HC who had reserved its orders.

The PIL further seeks a direction to the respondents, which includes Delhi government’s Minister for Revenue, Delhi Government through its Chief Secretary, Divisional Commissioner (Minority Affairs Branch) and Central Waqf Council, to take appropriate steps for the constitution of Delhi Waqf Board.

The plea also seeks a direction to the authorities to order Kumar to not to pass any orders in respect of Waqf properties or board while acting as its Administrator.

The plea is now listed on May 8.

Appearing for the petitioner, Secular Front of Lawyers, senior advocate Salman Khurshid said that the central issue in the matter concerns the “reconstitution of the Delhi Waqf Board”.

“The board’s term had ended in August last year however there hasn’t been a fresh reconstitution. Instead I think it seems that the government is relying upon section 99 of the Waqf Act which is a provision which comes into operation when the board is superseded…therefore somebody is put in place. Here it is not a case of ‘supersession but just an indefinite delay’,” Khurshid said.

He said the principal secretary (home) who also acts as ‘chairman/head of the religious committee’ of the Delhi Government has also been given the charge of the Waqf Board, adding that it amounts to a “conflict of interest”. “Whatever decision has to be taken relating to any property that may have some implications for religious purposes, demolition etc., the religious committee gives its recommendation… Now Respondent No 3 (Kumar) has become chairman of the religious committee, and the Administrator of the Waqf Board and therefore the conflict of interest has begun,” Khurshid said.

The PIL states that an administrator is appointed for the betterment of an organisation. However, in this case, instead of protecting the Waqf properties, the administrator is “sitting to destroy” them. Kumar was appointed as administrator on January 10 this year. The plea claims that Waqf properties are out of the purview of the religious committee as its domain is to recommend removal of unauthorised illegal religious structures on public land, whereas Waqf properties which have been in existence since centuries cannot be termed illegal as they have been notified in Delhi gazette.

During the hearing the bench flagged another issue which it said has been arising in Waqf property matters pertaining to their “misuse”. The bench orally said that there is a dispute regarding 123 properties (on which the Delhi Waqf Board lays its claim while the Centre had them denotified) remarking that the properties are “lucrative” and some of them are located in the “heart” of the national capital.

Referring to a separate matter concerning “unauthorised construction” at a sealed property located in Nizamuddin East the bench orally said, “That property, branded as a waqf property, was sold multiple times, and a hotel came up on that land without any permissions and when we asked the authorities what they were doing they said that there is dispute going on between the Waqf and the DDA as to who the property belongs to. In this dispute no one is looking after the properties, they are virtually encroached. Someone in these two departments is facilitating multiple sales and construction is going on galore…These properties are being misused today, unauthorised construction is happening…But it can’t happen without the connivance of the Waqf and DDA officials”.