MANAGING COMMITTEE WAQF NO.44 WAQF CHHOTI TAKIYA THRU. VICE PRESIDENT SRI AKRAM AZAD, BAHRAICH v. U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS THRU. CHAIRMAN LKO. AND OTHERS
WRIC/3528/2025 · 2025-04-15
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 133345 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 133345 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20954-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3528 of 2025 Petitioner :- Managing Committee Waqf No.44 Waqf Chhoti Takiya Thru. Vice President Sri Akram Azad, Bahraich Respondent :- U.P. Sunni Central Board Of Waqfs Thru. Chairman Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Aftab Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- Farhan Habib,Mohiuddin Khan,Vivek Kumar Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 today is taken on record. Heard. The Counsel for the petitioner insisted that this petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable, as, this has not been filed through the ‘Sarvakar’ but through the ‘Vice Chairman’. However, Shri Apoorva Tiwari, learned Counsel says that this Court while dismissing the earlier writ petition bearing Writ C No. 1910 of 2025 for want of prosecution did not permit the petitioner of the said writ petition to file a fresh writ petition, albeit, appropriately, through the authorized person, but only observed that its order dated 02.04.2025 will not come in the way if any person having locus standi to challenge the impugned decision, can do so, and also, that the said order will not amount to affirmation / approval of the impugned decisions, as, the Court had not entered into the merits of the matter. He then cited Chapter XXII Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which does not permit a second writ petition on the same facts. On being confronted, learned Counsel for the petitioner insisted that this petition would be maintainable. We have no other option but to reject this submission. Considering of the nature of the order passed on 02.04.2025 in the earlier writ petition bearing Writ C No. 1910 of 2025, a second writ petition would lie only if the petitioner of the said writ petition was given liberty to file the same. We do not find such liberty having been granted. If it is an omission, petitioner can seek a clarification of the said order. If the order is required
to be recalled, the same can also be sought, but we cannot entertain this petition. We dismiss this writ petition with liberty aforesaid. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench