- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13344 WP No. 5540 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 5540 OF 2026 (GM-WAKF) BETWEEN: 1. MASJID-E-JANNATUL FIRDOUSE (AHELAE-SUNNTHUL JAMATH) REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY MOHAMMED AKMAL S/O MOHAMED YOUSUF AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 1590/1 BM ROAD PERIYAPATNA TOWN MYSURU-571107 2. MASJID-E-JANNATUL FIRDOUSE (AHELAE-SUNNTHUL JAMATH) REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. GAFFAR AHMED S/O. AMEER SAB AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1745, MAIDER BLOCK, PRIYAPATTANA TOWN, MYSORE-571107 3. K ABDUL NOUFAL S/O K ABDUL MASTAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO. 108, GANDINAGARA STREET. PERIYAPATNA TOWN VTC: PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE-571107. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13344 WP No. 5540 of 2026 MEMBER MASJID-E-JANNATUL FIRDOUSE (AHELAE-SUNNTHUL JAMATH) 4. JAVEED KHAN MS S/O LATE SARVAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PERIYAPATNA TOWN GANDINAGARA PERIYAPATNA MYSORE-571107 MEMBER MASJID-E-JANNATUL FIRDOUSE (AHELAE-SUNNTHUL JAMATH) 5. SYED SADIQ AHMED S/O SYED BASHEER AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO. 1644. KRISHNAPURA PERIYAPATNA TOWN MYSURU-571107 MEMBER MASJID-E-JANNATUL FIRDOUSE (AHELAE-SUNNTHUL JAMATH) 6. MAHAMED RAZEEK S/O SHOUKATH ALI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1809, MAIDER BLOCK, PIRIYAPATNA TOWN MYSORE-571107 MEMBER MASJID-E-JANNATUL FIRDOUSE (AHELAE-SUNNTHUL JAMATH) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAVEED S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHAMAN VALI K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF NO.6, DARUL AUQAF, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13344 WP No. 5540 of 2026 CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 2. THE WAQF OFFICER, THE DISTRICT WAQF ADVISORY COMMITTEE NEW SAYYAJI RAO, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570021 3. THE CARE TAKER MASJID-E-JANNATUL FIRDOUSE (AHELAE-SUNNTHUL JAMATH) MR. SYED MUDDASIR, LIBRARIAN DPBS PU COLLEGE, PERIYAPATNA, MYSURU-571107 4. SRI. MOHAMMED SARDAR PASHA S/O MOHAMMED KHASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1765, MAIDER BLOCK, PERIYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MYSURU-571107 5. SRI. SYED TAHIR HUSSAIN S/O SYED AKBAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1752, MAIDER BLOCK, PERIYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MYSURU-571107 6. SRI. MUNAVAR PASHA @ ZAINULLA S/O LATE AHAMED PASHA, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13344 WP No. 5540 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 1769, MAIDER BLOCK, PERIYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MYSURU-571107 7. SRI. MOHAMMED KHALEED, S/O MOHAMMED SARDAR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1724, MAIDER BLOCK, PERIYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MYSURU-571107 8. SRI. MOHAMMED MUJAHID S/O MOHAMMED SARDAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1765, MAIDER BLOCK, PERIYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MYSURU-571107 9. SRI. MOHAMMED ARIF S/O MOHAMMED PASHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO. 1724, MAIDER BLOCK, PERIYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MYSURU-571107 10. SRI. SYED ISTIKHAR @ MUTTON AMMU S/O SYED ZAKIR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT MAIDER BLOCK, PERIYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MYSURU-571107 11. SRI. MUZAIL PASHA S/O AJAZ PASHA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13344 WP No. 5540 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT MAIDER BLOCK, PERIYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MYSURU-571107 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH ORDER DATED 27.10.2025 BEARING NO. KSBA/MSC/16/MYS/2021-22 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-D PASSED BY THE R1 ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the appointment of a caretaker by respondent No.1. The petitioners, who claim to be ex-secretaries of the managing committee, are questioning the appointment of a caretaker on the ground that it is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. It is also alleged that the respondent authorities have not afforded any opportunity to the petitioners before appointing a caretaker. The petitioner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13344 WP No. 5540 of 2026 also alleges that the appointment of a caretaker has led to law and order problems in the vicinity and that has led to disputes between two factions. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of a caretaker by respondent No.1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakf, vide impugned order, has appointed a caretaker to the institution. Perusal of the order, the Chief Executive Officer has adverted to the recommendations made by the Wakf officer vide letter 13.11.2024 to appoint one Syed Muddasir, Librarian, as a caretaker to the Masjid-e- Jannathul Firdose, Medar Block, Periyapatna Town, Mysuru District. Though several grounds are urged in the petition indicating that the appointment of a caretaker is preceded by arbitrariness and malfeasance, except bald assertions and allegations, no material is placed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13344 WP No. 5540 of 2026 4. Per contra, the order impugned clearly depicts that post-recommendation the names were placed before the selection committee meeting held on 13.08.2025 and the selection committee has passed the resolution, thereby appointing Syed Muddasir as a caretaker for a period of six months with a direction to conduct a regular managing committee. Based on these proceedings, the Chief Executive Officer has approved the appointment of a caretaker to the said wakf institution. 5. This Court firstly opines that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the appointment of a caretaker. The appointment is routed through recommendations made by the wakf officer, and the same is placed before the selection committee, and the selection committee has passed a resolution, thereby resolving to appoint Syed Muddasir as a caretaker, and this is approved by the Chief Executive Officer/respondent No.1. In the absence of any tangible material placed before this Court to demonstrate that the appointment suffers from malfeasance, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13344 WP No. 5540 of 2026 arbitrariness, favouritism, or violation of any statutory provision governing such appointments, this Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the decision taken by the competent authorities. It is a settled principle that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal over administrative decisions taken by statutory bodies, particularly when such decisions are taken through the prescribed procedure and by the competent authority. 6. Unless the petitioner is able to establish that the decision-making process is vitiated by illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or mala fides, the writ Court would be slow to interfere with such administrative actions. In the present case, no such material is forthcoming. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to unsettle an appointment that has been made through the proper channel and approved by the competent authority. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13344 WP No. 5540 of 2026 7. For the foregoing reasons, this court passes the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26