1 / 5 2025:CGHC:42351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4489 of 2025 1 - Shahid Khan Pinjara S/o Mohd. Shabuddin Khan Pinjara Aged About 41 Years R/o Mahamai Ward, Chudi Line Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Abdul Sattar Khan S/o Abdul Gaffar Khan Aged About 59 Years R/o House No. 2, Gandhi Ward, Tahsil- District- Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Ishak Khokhar S/o Late Mohd. Ibrahim Khokhar Aged About 52 Years R/o Bhawan No. 12, Malviya Marg, Param Hans Ward, Near Gurudwara, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Mohd Aziz S/o Mohd. Safik Aged About 51 Years R/o House No. 52/1, New Bus Stand, Shiva Ji Marg Mungeli Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - Saiyyad Usman Ali Manihar S/o Saiyyad Garib Ali Aged About 61 Years R/o Yusuf Marg, Mahamai Marg, Ward No. 14, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) 6 - Abdul Halim Khan S/o Abdul Hakeem Khan Aged About 55 Years R/o Shankar Ward, Malhapara, Mungeli, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Minority Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Division Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Mungeli, Distt.- Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Sub Division Mungeli, Distt.- Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Waqf Board, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 6 – President of Chhattisgarh Waqf Board Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.26 11:51:55 +0530 2 / 5 7 - Firdosh Ali Election In-Charge Of Sunni Kachchhi Maszid Mungeli, Distt.- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. M.H. Baig, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy GA For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 21/08/2025 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 18/07/2025 passed by the Respondent No.6 whereby the Respondent No.3 has vacated the stay order dated 17/06/2025 without giving any information to the Board members ignoring the order dated 18/07/2025 passed by this Court in WPC No.3705/2025. 2. The brief facts of this case, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners are members of Sunni Hanfi Muslim Samat, Mungeli, there not challenging any particular order, but they are very much aggrieved by holding illegal proceeding of election of Mutvalli of Sunni Kachchhi Maszid Mungeli and its President of Anjuman Intejamiya Committee is going to be held on 19.07.2025 without taking the last details of all accounts of Sunni Kachchhi Maszid Committee and Anjuman Intejamiya Committee, the petitioners along with other members have submitted applications before Commissioner of Division Bilaspur, Collector of Distt. Mungeli and Sub Divisional Officer (R) of Division Mungeli to stay the 3 / 5 proceeding of above elections but the respondent authorities are silent and they are still not taking proper action against above illegal election proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed a writ petition bearing WPC No.3705 of 2025, wherein this Court has passed the following order:- 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the present matter has become infructuous and he does not want to press the present petition as the election which is going to be held on 19.07.2025 has been stayed. 2. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. 3. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh petition, if any new cause of action arises. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that after passing of the order dated 18.07.2025, the respondents authority has misused his power and vacated stay order dated 17.06.2025 without giving any information to board members and respondent authority on same day i.e. vide its order dated 18.07.2025 which is completely illegal and contrary to the proceeding of pendency of the Writ Petition (C) No. 3705/2025 and order dated 18.07.2025 passed by this Court. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that on the basis of respondent counsel he has made the above statement before this Court in the earlier writ petition that the matter has become infructuous. He would next contend that as per provisions of Waqf Board Act, the elections of Mutvalli and President will be held according to the guidelines and directions of concerned Waqf Board, however, the concerned Election Committee is not action as per law 4 / 5 and is trying to hold the election on both the posts without following the guidelines and directions of Chhattisgarh Waqf Board and are not fulfilling the basic formalities. He would next contend that after dismissal of the said writ petition, the Waqf Board has passed the order and vacated the stay and the election has already been done on 19/07/2025. He would lastly contend that the impugned order dated 18/07/2025 passed by Respondent No.3 may be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of the order dated 18/07/2025 in WPC No.3705 of 2025 would show that in the said order it has been specifically mentioned that the present matter has become infructuous and he does not want to press the present petition as the election which is going to be held on 19/07/2025 has been stayed and on that basis the writ petition i.e. WPC No.3705 of 2025 was dismissed and liberty has been given to the petitioner to file fresh petition, if any new cause of action arises. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 8. Since the order dated 19/07/2025 has already been executed and newly elected Mutwalli has been appointed and there is a provision of filing application under Section 83 (2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1995) against the said order. 5 / 5 Further the Waqf Board and Office Bearers have not been made a party, therefore, the instant petition is also defective one and there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 83 (2) of the Act, 1995. Therefore, the petitioner if so desire, may avail the alternative remedy available to him under the law. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu