Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23075-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3844 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd. Salman Respondent :- U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Lko. Thru. Its Chief Executive Officer And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Talha Syed Counsel for Respondent :- Farhan Habib Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Sri Farhan Habib, Advocate has filed his Vakaltanama on behalf of the respondents which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Syed Husain along with Sri Talha Syed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Aftab Ahmad along with Sri Farhan Habib, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 3. Preliminary objections was raised by Sri Syed Aftab Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the against the order impugned dated 22.11.2024 and minutes of the Board meeting dated 05.11.2024 which is for suspension of the petitioner -Mutawalli in exercise of powers under sub-Section-5 of Section 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995 as amended till date, there is a remedy prescribed under the amended Act, 1995 under Section 83 before the Waqf Tribunal, however, if the Waqf tribunal is not functioning on account of lack of qorum, there is a further remedy under the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 83 before the High Court, albeit, by way of an appeal but instead of preferring an appeal, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Sri Syed Husain, learned counsel for the petitioner, on being confronted, submitted that the said amendment will not apply retrospectively to a decision taken prior to the date of amendment. Secondly, even otherwise, he says that the order is so apparently and palpably bad that mere existence of the said remedy will not come in the way and in this context he relied upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 'Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.' wherein three exceptions have been carved out to not maintainability of the writ petition on account of alternative remedy which are to the effect firstly violation of principle of natural justice, secondly, the order being without jurisdiction and thirdly, the vires of the enactment being under challenge. According to him, the case at hand falls within the first category as there is abject violation of principle of natural justice as is statutorily envisaged in the proviso to sub-Section (5). He further submits that in fact the order is not one of suspension referable to Section 64(5) but one of stay of appointment of petitioner as Mutawalli as is evident from a bare reading. Even if it is taken as an order of suspension, none of the ingredients of sub-Section (5) of Section 64 of the Act, 1995 are reflected from a reading of the said order nor do the minutes of the Board meeting dated 05.11.2024, copy of which annexed at page no.139 contained any such compliance. 5. Considering the facts of this case as noticed hereinabove, apparently, the impugned order is one of stay of petitioner's appointment as Mutawalli by the Board Resolution dated 19.10.2015 which was communicated vide certificate of Tauliayat 'B' dated 20.12.2015. The order impugned does not speak of suspension. It does not speak of any inquiry proposed or having been commenced. Even if the proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 64 of the Act, 1995 is taken into consideration, the period of ten days lapsed much earlier and if the said proviso is attracted and the order is to be treated as one of suspension, it has already come to an end as the order does not speak of any opportunity given to the petitioner prior to passing of the same. As regards a notice dated 03.12.2024 placed before us by Sri Syed Aftab Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties which is taken on record, the said notice though has been signed on 21.11.2024 but the date on it is 03.12.2024 which as informed by learned counsel for the opposite parties is the date of its issuance, therefore, obviously, on the date of passing of the order dated 22.11.2024, the notice was non-existent or had not been dispatched as such by the proviso the suspension has already come to an end. We, accordingly, stay the impugned orders, however, with liberty to the opposite parties to proceed afresh against the petitioner as per law. 6. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the opposite parties says that the only liberty required by the opposite parties is to conclude the proceedings under Section 64 of the Act, 1995. If it is so then it is always open for the Waqf Board to complete the proceedings, if any, as per law. He further says that the matter be disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 7. In view of this statement, we quash the impugned orders which according to the opposite parties are of suspension but according to petitioner are of stay of the appointment, meaning thereby, the petitioner can now function as Mutawalli of the Waqf in term of the certificate of Tauliayat 'B' dated 20.12.2015 unless there is any other legal impediment. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench