1 CGHC010355252026 2026:CGHC:42244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4736 of 2026 1 - Hanif Khan S/o Shri Rajjak Khan Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Nawab Mohalla, Sarafa Line, Sheetal Marg, Ward No. 22, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sheikh Asif S/o Late Shri Sheikh Asgar Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Mahaveer Swami Ward, Ward No. 23, Darripara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tausif Khan S/o Shri Sayeed Khan Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 6, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 4 - Afzal Khan S/o Late Shri Akhtar Khan Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Ghotia Road, Ward No. 25, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 5 - Junaid Hingora S/o Shri Razak Hingora Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Ghotia Road, Ward No. 25, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 6 - Hamid Khan S/o Late Shri Jabbar Khan Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Sarafa Line, Ward No. 22, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 7 - Firdoz Khan S/o Late Shri Mustafa Khan Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Daldapara, Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 4, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 8 - Afroz Khan S/o Shri Samaiyatdeen Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Near Bjp Office, Lohara Naka, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 9 - Ikram Khan S/o Shri Iqbal Khan Aged About 35 Years Resident Of RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Sarafa Line, Sheetal Marg, Ward No. 22, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 10 - Maudlin Tawar S/o Late Shri Ramzan Tawar Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 6, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Wakf Board Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Opposite Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Statue, Collectorate Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh State Wakf Board, Opposite Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Statue, Collectorate Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chairperson Chhattisgarh State Wakf Board, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Opposite Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Statue, Collectorate Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sunni Hanfi Jama Masjid Muslim Trust A Registered Trust Under The Provisions Of The United Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency And Development Act, 1995, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 3 28/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call upon the entire record from respondent No. 2 concerning the issuance of the order dated 03.09.2026 for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 03.09.2026 (ANNEXURE P-1). 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 3, namely, the Chief Executive Officer, has acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 03.09.2026 appointing an administrator in respondent No. 5 Trust. It is submitted that under Section 14 of the Act, the Waqf Board is a multi-member body consisting of members representing different sectors, and the powers vested in the Board cannot be exercised independently by the Chief Executive Officer or the Chairperson in their individual capacity. The Chief Executive Officer is merely an officer responsible for carrying out the decisions of the Board and has no independent authority to pass an order appointing an administrator to manage the affairs of a Waqf. Likewise, the Chairperson cannot assume the powers 4 vested in the Board without a decision duly taken by the Board. In the present case, although four members of the Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board had, vide letter dated 31.08.2026, sought extension of the tenure of the Managing Committee for a period of one year, no meeting of the Board was convened thereafter, nor was any agenda regarding the appointment of an administrator or issuance of the impugned order dated 03.09.2026 placed before the Board for consideration or deliberation. Thus, the impugned order was issued by the Chief Executive Officer in his individual capacity, without any resolution or authorization of the Board, by illegally assuming the powers purportedly vested in the Board under Section 32 of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order dated 03.09.2026 has been passed in excess of jurisdiction and without lawful authority and is consequently liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that, in view of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, nothing survives for adjudication in the present petition, as the impugned order has itself been withdrawn by respondent No. 3. It is, therefore, submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioners no longer survives and the petition may accordingly be disposed of. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for 5 the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the stand taken by respondents No. 2 and 3 in their reply that the impugned order has already been withdrawn by respondent No. 3, this Court is of the considered view that nothing further survives for consideration or adjudication in the present petition. 6. In view of the withdrawal of the impugned order, the relief sought by the petitioners does not require any further consideration. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. 8. Consequently, the interim order dated 17.09.2026 passed by this Court shall come to an end. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat