Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44634-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6994 of 2025 Petitioner :- Farah D. Badakhshi Respondent :- U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Thru.Its Chief Executive Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saud Rais Counsel for Respondent :- Farhan Habib,Aftab Ahmad Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Aftab Ahmad, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No.1 to 3 is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Saud Rais and Shri Kazim Ibrahim, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Farhan Habib, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.4 and 5. 3. After arguing the matter at length though initially the Counsel for the opposite party No.4 and 5 submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable and an appeal under the proviso to Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended upto date) should have been filed but subsequently on being confronted with other decisions on the subject, but without conceding on this question, he submitted that as the order has been passed without notice to the petitioner therefore, the matter can be remanded back after quashing the impugned order to which, Shri Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the two applications which are the basis for the impugned order; one having been filed by the opposite party No.4 on 10.02.2025 and the other by opposite party No.5 on 18.03.2025 itself are not maintainable and the Board, after having rendered the judgment on 28.01.2025 cancelling the appointment of opposite party No.4 as mutawalli and appointing the petitioner as mutawalli in her place, had been rendered functus officio, therefore, even if this Court is inclined to remand the matter, it may be left open to the petitioner to raise this objection. In response, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.4 and 5 submitted that even if there is no explicit provision for recall or review in the Act, 1995 procedural review would still be maintainable. Without going into the question as to whether the application for recall dated 18.03.2025 filed by the opposite party No.5 was maintainable or not and leaving this issue to be considered by the Board with liberty to the petitioner and opposite party No.5 to raise all permissible pleas before the Board including the maintainability of such an application and considering the fact that by the impugned order, the Board has recalled its earlier order that too on two applications, one of which having been filed by opposite party No.4, who, in fact, has already preferred an appeal and she, in fact, did not seek a recall of the order rather she had sought appointment of opposite party No.5 as mutawalli, we do not find the order to this extent so far as the application submitted by opposite party No.4 to be maintainable, accordingly, we, quash the order to that extent and as the said order has also been passed on the application of opposite party No.5 but without notice to the petitioner and as in the order impugned, we do not find any recital to the effect that the application was being entertained on grounds of procedural review and was being allowed on the said ground and the Counsel for the opposite party No.4 and 5 fairly submits that this could not have been done although, he presses that the application was otherwise maintainable, we, quash the impugned order in its entirety and all the consequential orders, subject to what has been stated hereinabove. We make it clear that it shall be open for the petitioner to raise objections regarding maintainability of the application preferred by opposite party No.5 dated 18.03.2025 just as it shall be open for opposite party No.5 to demonstrate that it is maintainable, however, so far as the opposite party No.4 is concerned, she will not be heard in the said proceedings and will have to pursue her appeal which has already been filed against the original order dated 28.01.2025. 4. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 5. As a consequence of the aforesaid order, needless to say that the petitioner will continue to work as mutawalli subject to any orders been passed by the Board in the application preferred by the opposite party No.5, if it is maintainable and the order in appeal preferred by opposite party No.4. (Manish Kumar, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 1.8.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench