SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 28 SPA No. 429 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ahrar Baig, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.C. Pandey, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.2. The challenge in this appeal is made to the judgment and order dated 11.12.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3422 of 2025, Management Committee Waqf No. 108, Mazar Waliullah Shaha, 109 Eidgah Purana Khere and Waqf no. 252 Jama Masjid Rudrapur vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (“the petition”). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant sought relief qua some waqf property. During the course of hearing, it was told that on behalf of the State that the petitioner has already approached Waqf Tribunal, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, under public law remedy, the petition may not be entertained. What happened thereafter, this Court observed in paras 5 to 8 of the impugned judgment, as hereunder:- “5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to approach the Waqf Tribunal by making appropriate application; however, he may be protected only for one week. 6. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam points out that possession of the disputed property has been taken by District Administration on 07.12.2025, much before filing of the writ petition. 7. Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the Waqf tribunal for appropriate relief. 8. For a period of one week from today, status quo, qua the property in question shall be maintained.” Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has approached the tribunal, but the respondents has taken time, therefore, he seeks further protection. The order has been passed based on the statement given by the appellant. There is nothing in the order of which correctness may be examined in this appeal. Having considered, there is no reason to make any interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.12.2025 Jitendra