Challenge To Validity of Notification Abolishing Rampur Waqf Tribunal

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
WRIT PETITION NO. (M/B) OF 2017
1. Mohd. Kasim, aged about 53 years, son of Shri Hassu

Shah, resident of Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, Rewadi Mohalla,
Etah, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Ashok Kumar Shivhare, aged about 50 years, son of Shri

Ram Nath Shivhare, resident of Agra 13/15 halka madan,
Agra fort, Kiraoli Agra-282003.
3. Farzand Ali, aged about 50 years, son of Shri Ali Akhtar,

resident of A118, Block A to F Noor Nagar Johri Farma
Delhi- 110025.
….PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Minority

Welfare and Waqf, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.
2. Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf, U.P. Civil

Secretariat, Lucknow.
…..RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other Hon’ble Companion

Judges of this Hon'ble High Court,
The humble Petitioners of the said petition most respectfully
begs to submit as under:-
01. That the Petitioners declare that no other Writ Petition,

application including review application etc. or any other
proceedings arising from or related to the impugned
notifications or the relief sought before this Court has
been filed or is pending to the best of his knowledge
before this Court, at Allahabad or Lucknow or any other
Court/Authority Tribunal, etc. The Petitioners further
declare that he has not received notice, information or
copy of any caveat application by Registered Post or
otherwise from any of the Respondents or from any other
source.
02. That the Petitioners beg to assail the constitutionality and

validity of the notification dated 24.08.2017 (hereinafter
referred to as “the impugned notification”) by means
of which the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur has been abolished
in the most arbitrary and whimsical manner and without
any application of mind, which also violates the
Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under
Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A copy of
the aforesaid impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 is
annexed herewith as Annexure-1 to the instant Writ
Petition.
That though the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur was

constituted by the notification dated 03.03.2014 but due
to State Government’s indolence the same could not be
made functional and this Hon’ble Court came down
heavily on the State Government on the sorry state of
affairs and State Government submitted before the
Hon’ble Court that it would ensure the smooth
functioning of the Tribunal.
That out of the blue in a complete departure of the

statement made by the State Government before the
Hon’ble Court at Allahabad, to make both the Tribunals
fully functional, the Respondent No. 2 issued notification
dated 24.08.2017 and without assigning any reasons and
in the most arbitrary and whimsical manner, abolished
the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur and amalgamated the
jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur into the Waqf
Tribunal at Lucknow, thereby making a mockery of the
justice system.
That when the circumstances which unfolded before the

issuance of the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017
is taken into consideration, it becomes crystal clear that
the impugned notification is arbitrary. In compliance of
the orders of this Hon’ble Court to ensure smooth
functioning of the Waqf Tribunal the Chief Secretary,
Minority Welfare and Waqf vide notification dated
29.06.2017 appointed the member of the Tribunal just a
fortnight before the impugned notification dated
24.08.2017, and the State Government vide office
memorandum dated 10.08.2017 appointed the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate as the Registrar of the Tribunal at
Rampur and very interestingly a meeting was convened
on 18.08.2017 by the Department of Minorities Welfare
and Waqf for deliberating on the steps to be taken for
ensuring smooth functioning of the Waqf Tribunals but
out of the blue on 24.08.2017, the Respondent No. 2
whimsically proceeded to abolish the Tribunal at Rampur.
That thus it becomes crystal clear that the issuance of
the impugned notification is an act uninformed by reason
as and is therefore arbitrary and hence deserves to be
set aside on this count alone as being violative of Article
14 of the Constitution.
That besides the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017

also violates the fundamental right of access to justice
enshrined in Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution
in light of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016) 8
SCC 509.
That the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 violates

the Petitioner’s and other similarly situated litigants
fundamental right of access to justice. As a consequence
of the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 the
Petitioners and the litigants of the 26 districts who were
hitherto amenable to the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal
at Rampur would be forced to undertake a journey to
Lucknow after covering huge distance in order to
ventilate their grievance which violates the Petitioners
fundamental right of convenient access of adjudicatory
forum in terms of distance, a facet of the fundamental
right of access to justice.
The impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 leads to a

situation of grave hardship to the common citizens of the
State. Since the Waqf Tribunal has original jurisdiction
and is a Tribunal of first instance grave inconvenience
would be caused to common litigants, especially the ones
who belong to the lower strata of society who would have
to travel to Lucknow for the resolution of smaller issues
pertaining to disputes which come within the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal.
That thus establishing more Waqfs Tribunals is not only

the need of the hour but a constitutional obligation on
part of the State so as to make the Waqf Tribunals easily
accessible in terms of distance to the litigants and taking
steps to abolish the Tribunals would violate the mandate
contained in Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution besides
causing grave injustice to the common litigants.
That moreover the impugned notification makes

resolution of Waqf dispute expensive and beyond the
affordable means of the poor litigants of the 26 districts
including the Petitioner and the same violates the
fundamental right of access to justice as one of the many
facets of this fundamental right is that the State is under
an obligation to make access to justice affordable to the
less fortunate sections of the society.
That the amalgamation of jurisdiction of the Tribunal at

Rampur with the Waqf Tribunal at Lucknow would lead to
stacking of cases in the Tribunal at Lucknow, a necessary
corollary of which is that the litigants would be deprived
of their fundamental right of a speedy disposal of the
dispute.
That hence in these circumstances the impugned

notification dated 24.08.2017 deserves to be quashed.
03. That the brief facts of the matter are being submitted
herein under for kind consideration of this Hon’ble
Court:-
04. That the Petitioner No. 1 is a resident of Etah and has

instituted Waqf Case No. 14/2016, Mohd. Saleem Chisty
and Others v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and others
in the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur. The dispute in the
aforesaid litigation pertains to the Waqf property which is
located in Etah and as a consequence of the impugned
notification dated 24.08.2017 the aforesaid case of the
Petitioner No. 1 would be transferred to the Waqf
Tribunal at Lucknow, which would thereby violate his
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.
05. That the Petitioner No. 2 is a resident of Agra and Waqf

Case No. 335/2016 Waqf No. 49 Agra v. Suresh Chandra
Shivhare, has been instituted against him in the Waqf
Tribunal at Rampur. The dispute in the aforesaid matter
pertains to the Waqf property which is located in Agra
and as a consequence of the impugned notification dated
24.08.2017 the aforesaid case instituted against the
Petitioner No. 2 would be transferred to the Waqf
Tribunal at Lucknow, which would thereby violate his
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India and tremendous difficulty would
be caused to the Petitioner No. 2 in continuing with his
litigation effectively.
06. That the Petitioner No. 3 has instituted Waqf Case No.
80/2016, Allahtala Malike Waqf Sayed Buniyad Ali Khan
Waqf No. 92(A) Moradabad through mutawalli Farzand
Ali, in the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur. The dispute in the
aforesaid matter pertains to Waqf property which is
located in Muradabad and as a consequence of the
impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 the aforesaid
case of the Petitioner No. 3 would be transferred to the
Waqf Tribunal at Lucknow, which would thereby violate
his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 and 14
of the Constitution of India. A copy of the plaint filed in
the aforesaid Waqf Case No. 80/2016 by the Petitioner
No. 3 is annexed herewith as Annexure-2 to the instant
Writ Petition.
07. That prior to the amendment of the Waqf Act, 1995, by

the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013, sub-section (1) of
Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 enabled the State
Government to constitute Tribunals for determining any
dispute, question or other matter relating to waqf
property.
08. That under sub-section (4) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act

1995, the Tribunal was to consist of one person holding a
rank not below that of a District, Sessions or Civil Judge,
Class I in the State Judicial Service.
09. That the State Government in exercise of power

conferred under the un-amended Section 83 of the Waqf
Act, 1995 read with section 21 of the General Clauses
Act, 1997 vide notification dated 07.11.1998 appointed
Civil Judge (Senior Division) of each and every District to
act as one man Waqf Tribunal.
10. That section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 was amended by
the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013) (Act No.27 of 2013).
Section 44 of the Amending Act substituted the
provisions of sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 83 in
the following terms:
“44. Amendment of Section 83:- In Section 83 of the principal

Act,
(a) for sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be

substituted, namely-
“(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official

Gazette constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the
determination of any, dispute, question or other matter relating
to a waqf or waqf property, eviction of a tenant or determination
of rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessee of such
property, under this Act and define the local limits and
jurisdiction of such Tribunals.”
(b) for sub-section (4), the following sub-sections shall be

substituted, namely-
“(4) Every Tribunal shall consist of-
(a) one person, who shall be a member of the State

Judicial Service holding a rank, not below that of a
District, Sessions or Civil Judge, Class I, who shall be
the Chairman;
(b) one person, who shall be an officer from the State

Civil Services equivalent in rank to that of the Additional
District Magistrate, Member;
(c) one person having knowledge of Muslim law and

jurisprudence, Member;
and the appointment of every such person shall be

made either by name or by designation.
(4-A) The terms and conditions of appointment including the

salaries and allowances payable to the Chairman and other
members other than persons appointed as ex officio, members
shall be such as may be prescribed”
11. That by a notification dated 29 October 2013 published in
the Gazette of India on 31 October 2013, the Central
Government appointed 1 November 2013 as the date on
which the provisions of the Act would came into force.
12. That as a result of the provisions of Amending Act No. 27

of 2013 with effect from 1 November 2013, sub-sections
(1) and (4) of Section 83 were substituted.
13. That evidently, after amendment sub-section (1) of

Section 83 expanded the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal
as prior to the amendment, the jurisdiction of the Waqf
Tribunal was to determine any dispute, question or other
matter relating to a waqf or waqf property under the Act.
In addition to this, the substituted provisions of sub-
section (1) also empower the Waqf Tribunal to determine
matters relating to eviction of tenants or determination of
rights and obligations of a lessor and lessee in respect of
property under the Act.
14. That moreover after amendment, sub-section (4) of the

Waqf Act provides that the Tribunal shall consist of three
members. Earlier, the Act had contemplated a one
member Tribunal consisting of a judicial officer.
15. That there is no gainsaying that the laudable object of

the Amending Act No. 27 of 2013 was to increase the
efficacy and the efficiency of the Tribunal by increasing
the members of the Tribunal and to provide quick, easy
and cost effective justice in variety of matters by bringing
in its fold matters pertaining to eviction of tenants as well
as those which relate to determination of rights and
obligations of a lessor and lessee in respect of property
under the Waqf Act, which were not the subject matter of
adjudication of the Waqf Tribunal before. That to fortify
the above submission it is apposite to place reliance on
the following observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust v. Magnum
Developers, AIR 2016 SC 381,
“The idea of expanding the composition by the 2013

Amendment seems to make improvement in the functioning of
the Tribunal with the help of two more members in the
Tribunal.”
16. That vide notification No: 360/52-2-14-2(279)-13, dated

03.03.2014, the State Government in exercise of powers
conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 83, constituted
two three member Waqf tribunals, one at Lucknow and
another at Rampur. A copy of the aforesaid notification
dated 03.03.2014 whereby the two Waqf Tribunals were
constituted in State of Uttar Pradesh is annexed herewith
as Annexure-3 to the instant Writ Petition.
17. That even though the State Government by notification

dated 03.03.2014 constituted the three member Tribunal
in regards to amended sub-section 4 of Section 83 of the
Waqf Act, but the State Government showing complete
apathy and lackadaisical attitude did not make the three
member Tribunal functional by appointing the members.
Thus in the eyes of law the Tribunal was not validly
constituted.
18. That such uncarrying attitude of the State Government in

not validly constituting the Tribunal was heavily
reprimanded by this Hon’ble Court through its various
judgments and order.
19. That this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.10.2014

passed in Writ C No. 52075 of 2014 (C/M Waqf No.
81 through its President v. Chairman U.P. Sunni
Central Waqf Board) came down heavily on the State
Government in its uncarrying attitude of not constituting
Tribunal in terms of the mandate of the amended sub-
section 4 of Section 83 of the Waqf Act and directed the
Secretary Minority Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh
to file personal affidavit as to why the State Government
has not found it proper to constitute the Waqf Tribunal in
terms of Section 83 of the Waqf Act. A copy of the order
dated 08.10.2014 passed in Writ C No. 52075 of 2014
by this Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith as Annexure-
4 to the instant Writ Petition.
20. That similarly a coordinate Division Bench of this Hon’ble

Court at Allahabad in Mohammad Junaid Aijaz v.
Union of India PIL No. 26356 of 2015 expressed its
displeasure over the inaction of the State Government in
not making the tribunal constituted by notification dated
03.03.2014 at Lucknow and Rampur functional. The
Court observed that
“Under Section 83(1) of the Act, the State Government is

empowered to constitute as many Tribunals as it may think
fit for the determination of disputes as described in that
sub-section. There are seventy five districts in the State of
Uttar Pradesh. The State has constituted only two
Tribunals one each at Lucknow and Rampur. Both of them
are yet to be made functional. Though the notification was
issued on 3 March 2014, it is unfortunate that the State has
still not been able to make the Tribunals functional.”
21. That the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh in
Writ C No. 59690 of 2015 (Mohd. Ewaz v. State of
U.P.) submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the
Tribunal at Lucknow had become functional, but the
Tribunal at Rampur was still to be made functional as the
Chairman of the Tribunal at Rampur could not be
appointed. That vide order dated 09.12.2015, the Hon’ble
Court admonished the casual approach of the State
Government in not constituting/making functional the
Tribunal at Rampur as the same was putting in jeopardy
the right of statutory appeal of the aggrieved person. A
copy of the order dated 09.12.2015 passed in Writ C No.
59690 of 2015 by this Hon’ble Court is annexed
herewith as Annexure-5 to the instant Writ Petition.
22. That even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Shah Baba
Dargah Trust v. Magnum Developers, AIR 2016 SC
381 reprimanded the State in their negligent and callous
approach in not constituting the Tribunal as per the
mandate of the amended Section 83(4) of the Waqf Act.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“42. Before parting with the order we record our serious

exception to the conduct of the States who have not till date
issued fresh notification constituting three member Tribunal as
mandate by Section 83 (4) of the Act. We, therefore, direct the
States to immediately take steps for constituting a three member
Tribunal and notification to that effect must be issued within
four months from today.”
23. That the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court vide notification

dated 27.01.2016 appointed Dr. Rakesh Kumar Nain,
Additional District and Session Judge, Kaushambi as the
Chairman, Waqf Tribunal, Rampur. A Copy of the
notification dated 27.01.2016 released by the Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court is annexed herewith as Annexure-
24. That even though the Chairman as well as one member

of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur, were appointed but the
sad affair of the apathy and indolence on part of the
State continued as the Tribunal was functioning only with
two members when under the mandate of the amended
Section 83(4) of the Waqf Act the Waqf Tribunal was to
consist of three members.
25. That vide letter dated 09.02.2016, the Chairman, Waqf

Tribunal, Rampur requested the District Magistrates of
the 26 Districts which fell within the territorial jurisdiction
of Rampur Waqf Tribunal, to transfer all the pending
cases pertaining to the Waqf Act 1995 to the Waqf
Tribunal at Rampur. A copy of the letter dated
09.02.2017 by the Chairman Waqf Tribunal Rampur to
the District Magistrates of the 26 districts is annexed
26. That vide letter dated 21.03.2016, the Secretary,

Minority Welfare and Waqf requested the Registrar
General of this Hon’ble Court to issue appropriate
directions to all the courts within the supervisory
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court to transfer all
pending cases pertaining to Waqf matters which fell
within the territorial jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal at
Rampur to the Tribunal as the same had now become
functional. A copy of the letter dated 21.03.2016 by the
Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf to the Registrar
General of this Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith as
Annexure-8 to the instant Writ Petition.
27. That vide letter dated 13.04.2016 the Registrar General

of this Hon’ble Court requested the District Judges of the
26 districts which fell within the territorial jurisdiction of
Rampur Waqf Tribunal, to transfer all the pending cases
in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) pertaining to
the Waqf Act 1995 to the newly formed Waqf Tribunal at
Rampur. A copy of the letter dated 13.04.2016 by the
Registrar General to the the District Judges of the 26
districts is annexed herewith as Annexure-9 to the
instant Writ Petition.
28. That vide order dated 21.11.2016 the Secretary, Niyukti

Anubhag appointed Shri Martand Pratap Singh, Additional
District Magistrate (F/R), Rampur as the second member
of the Waqf Tribunal with immediate effect, by assigning
to him the additional charge of the member of Waqf
Tribunal. Subsequently vide letter dated 07.12.2016 the
Special Secretary, Minority Welfare and Wakf informed
the Chairman of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur about the
said appointment of Additional District Magistrate (F/R)
as a member of the Tribunal. A copy of the aforesaid
letter dated 07.12.2016 by the Special Secretary,
Minority Welfare and Wakf to the Chairman of the Waqf
Tribunal at Rampur is annexed herewith as Annexure-
29. That though this Hon’ble Court in Civil Revision No.

358 of 2016 vide its judgment and order dated
24.11.2016 observed that with effect from 21.11.2016,
the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur all the three members were
appointed and thus the Tribunal was validly constituted,
the Tribunal at Rampur continued to function with only
two members. A copy of the order dated 24.11.2016 of
the Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in Civil Revision No.
358 of 2016, is annexed herewith as Annexure-11 to
the instant Writ Petition.
30. That it was only on 29.06.2017 that the Chief Secretary,

Minority Welfare and Waqf vide notification dated
29.06.2017 nominated Smt Shabeeh Fatma, Advocate
as third member of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur. The
post had fallen vacant on the death of Shri Sarvat Ali, a
member of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur. Pursuant to the
appointment, Smt. Shabeeh Fatma assumed the charges
of the post on 05.07.2017. Copies of the appointment
notification dated 29.06.2017 and the certificate to the
effect that Smt Shabeeh Fatma has assumed the charges
as member of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur are
collectively annexed herewith as Annexure-12 (Colly)
to the instant Writ Petition.
31. That a Civil Revision, Civil Revision No. 179 of 2017

(Alla Tala Malike Waqf Saiyyad Buniyad Ali Khan v.
Wave Industries Private Limited) against an order
dated 24.04.2017 of the Waqf Tribunal, Rampur was filed
by the Petitioner No. 3 before this Court at Allahabad on
the ground that the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal is
void as it was not a validly constituted Tribunal as only
two members against the required three members
adjudicated the dispute. That the Civil Revision No.
179 of 2017 was connected with Civil Revision No.
181 of 2017 (C/M Waqf Dargag Hazrat Shah Abdul
Wahab Masjid & Kabristan v. U.P. Sunni Central
Waqf Board). The Hon’ble Court at Allahabad vide order
dated 13.07.2017 directed the Principal Secretary,
Minority Welfare and Muslim Waqf and Principal Secretary
(Law), Government of Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit
with complete details regarding the constitution of Waqf
Tribunals at Lucknow and Rampur. That the relevant
extract of the order dated 13.07.2017 is reproduced
herein below for the ready reference of this Hon’ble
Court.
“Put up on 18.07.2017 along with the connected revision, by
which date the Respondent Nos. 4 (Principal Secretary,
Minority Welfare and Muslim Waqf) and 5 (Principal Secretary
Law) shall show cause in the light of the order dated
10.07.2017 passed by this Court. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
shall also disclose in the affidavit the complete details regarding
constitution of Waqf Tribunals at Lucknow and Rampur. It shall
also be disclosed as to whether the members of the Waqf are
full time.”
A copy of the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the

Hon’ble Court in Civil Revision No. 181 of 2017 is
Petition.
32. That the Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf,

Government of Uttar Pradesh filed a counter affidavit in
Civil Revision No. 181 of 2017 and it was submitted
that in Waqf Tribunal, Rampur, Dr. Rakesh Kuma Nain
(Officer of Judicial Service) was working as the Chairman
of the Tribunal, Shri Martand Pratap Singh (ADM F/R,
Rampur) was working as second member and Smt.
Shabeeh Fatma who was nominated by notification dated
29.06.2017 was working as the third member of the
Tribunal.
33. That the Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in Civil Revision

No. 181 of 2017, vide order dated 25.07.2017 found
substance in the submission of the Revisionist that both
the Tribunals at Rampur and Lucknow have not yet
started functioning smoothly for the following reasons:
Fistly, due to non appointment of Members of the

Tribunals
Secondly, appointment of Member by giving additional

charge
Thirdly, non availability of any infrastructural facility and

supporting staff.
Consequently, the Hon’ble Court vide order dated

25.07.2017, directed the Principal Secretary, Minority
Welfare and Waqf, Government of Uttar Pradesh to file
affidavit giving complete and upto date details of pending
cases, the cases decided by two Members, and
availability and sufficiency of infrastructure facility and
staff in both the Tribunals.
A copy of the order dated 25.07.2017 passed by this

Hon’ble Court in Civil Revision No. 181 of 2017, is
Petition.
34. That the shocking state of affairs was brought to light

when the affidavit in compliance of the order dated
25.07.2017 was filed by the Principal Secretary, Minority
Welfare and Waqf, Government of Uttar Pradesh. From a
perusal of a chart exhibiting the posts created and the
appointment made to such post it emerged that though
the appointment of three members as contemplated in
the amended Section 83(4) of the Waqf Act were made
but except the Chairman, the two other members were
not functioning. The saddest part was that neither there
was any appointment of Registrar of Rampur Waqf
Tribunal nor a single post of the supporting staff was
filled, thus there was no way in which the Tribunal at
Rampur could smoothly function. A copy of the chart
exhibiting the posts created and the appointments made
to such post in relation to the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur,
filed by the Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare and
Waqf, Government of Uttar Pradesh, as a part of Counter
Affidavit in Civil Revision No. 181 of 2017, is annexed
35. That taking into consideration the sorry state of affairs,

this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in Civil Revision No.
181 of 2017 vide order dated 08.08.2017 observed
that:
“All the affidavits are totally unsatisfactory and show how

the public money has been wasted for years together by
not appointing all the members of the Tribunal.
Large number of orders have been passed illegally and
unauthorisedly by one or two members only. Even,
Registrar in Waqf Tribunal, Rampur has not been
appointed so far. Large number of cases are pending in
Waqf Tribunal, Rampur and Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow. The
litigants are helpless due to inaction of the Government.”
A copy of the aforesaid order dated 08.08.2017 passed

by this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in Civil Revision No.
181 of 2017, is annexed herewith as Annexure-16 to
36. That on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh it was
submitted before this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in Civil
Revision No. 181 of 2017 that proper arrangements
shall be made by the State Government to make both the
Tribunals at Rampur and Lucknow functional. That the
above submission of the State Government is recorded in
the order dated 08.08.2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court
at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 181 of 2017, the
relevant portion of which is being extracted hereinbelow:
“Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Sri Indra Sen Singh Tomar, learned
Standing Counsel, submits that proper arrangements shall
be made by the State Government to make both the
Tribunals fully functional.”
37. That expecting the State to make the Tribunals function

smoothly the Hon’ble Court directed the Principal
Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, to file an affidavit regarding the
developments made in the above regard.
38. That vide office memorandum dated 10.08.2017, the

Special Secretary, Niyukti Anubhag appointed Shri Ballu
Prassad, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampur as the
Registrar Waqf Tribunal on the recommendation of the
Department of Minority Welfare and Waqf, Government
of Uttar Pradesh. A copy of the aforesaid office
memorandum dated 10.08.2017 whereby the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Rampur was appointed as the
Registrar Waqf Tribunal, Rampur is annexed herewith as
Annexure-17 to the instant Writ Petition.
39. That vide letter dated 16.08.2017, the Joint Secretary,

Minority Welfare and Wakf informed the Chairman of the
Waqf Tribunal at Rampur that this Hon’ble Court at
Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 181 of 2017, had
expressed its displeasure about the state of affairs
relating to the functioning of the Tribunal at Rampur and
that necessary measures were therefore required to be
taken for ensuring the smooth functioning of the Tribunal
at Rampur and hence requested the Chairman to attend
a meeting that was to be convened on 18.08.2017 for
deliberating on the steps to be taken for ensuring smooth
functioning of the Waqf Tribunals. A copy of the aforesaid
letter dated 16.08.2017 by the Joint Secretary, Minority
Welfare and Waqf to the Chairman Waqf Tribunal,
Rampur is annexed herewith as Annexure-18 to the
instant Writ Petition.
40. That out of the blue in a complete departure of the

statement made by the State Government before the
Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 181 of
2017, to make both the Tribunals fully functional, the
Respondent No. 2 issued notification dated 24.08.2017
which was published in the Gazette of Uttar Pradesh,
whereby the State Government in exercise of power
vested in Section 83 (1) read with Section 83 (4) of the
amended Waqf Act 1995, further read with Section 21 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897, in the most arbitrary and
whimsical manner, without assigning any reasons
abolished the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur and amalgamated
the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur into the
Waqf Tribunal at Lucknow, thereby making a mockery of
the justice system. A copy of the impugned notification
dated 24.08.2017 is already annexed as Annexure-1 to
41. That though power vests with the State Government to
create and abolish the Tribunal, and the same is a policy
decision but it is not beyond the pale of judicial review
and the same can be challenged on limited grounds.
42. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development

Authority v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS
Flats (2008) 2 SCC 672 held that:
“An executive order termed as a policy decision is not

beyond the pale of judicial review. Whereas the superior
courts may not interfere with the natty grittiest of the
policy, or substitute one by the other but it will not be
correct to contend that the court shall like its judicial
hands off, when a plea is raised that the impugned
decision is a policy decision. Interference therewith on the
part of the superior court would not be without jurisdiction
as it is subject to judicial review.
Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on

the following grounds:
(a) if it is unconstitutional;
(b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the
Regulations;
(c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of
delegation;
(d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a
larger policy.”
43. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Census

Commissioner v. R. Krishnamurthy (2015) 2 SCC
796 after placing reliance on a plethora of judgments on
the issue held that:
“From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is clear as noon

day that it is not within the domain of the courts to embark upon
an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and
acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The
court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely
capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary
and founded ipse dixit offending the basic requirement of
Article 14 of the Constitution.”
44. That it is submitted that the impugned notification dated

24.08.2017 offends the basic requirement of Article 14 as
it assigns no reason for the abolition of the Tribunal and
is therefore arbitrary.
45. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Shrilekha

Vidyarthi v State of U.P (1991) 1 SCC 212 held that
an act uninformed by reason is arbitrary. That for the
convenience of the Hon’ble Court the relevant extract is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“The meaning and true import of arbitrariness is more

easily visualized than precisely stated or defined. The
question, whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is
ultimately to be answered on the facts and in the
circumstances of a given case…….. Every State action
must be informed by reason and it follows that an act
uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. Rule of law
contemplates governance by laws and not by humour,
whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is
entrusted for the time being. It is trite that 'be you ever so
high, the laws are above you'. This is what men in power
must remember, always.”
46. That the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 before

proceeding with the abolition of the Waqf Tribunal at
Rampur does not even remotely assigns a reason for the
action and thus is an act uninformed by reason which is
antithesis to reasonableness and hence is arbitrary. The
act is purely based on whims and fancies of the State
Government.
47. That when the circumstances which unfolded before the

issuance of the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017
is taken into consideration, the assertion that the
impugned notification is arbitrary gets fortified manifold
times. This Hon’ble Court at Allahabad through its various
orders referred above directed the State Government to
insure the smooth functioning of the Waqf Tribunal at
Rampur and consequently in compliance of the orders of
the Hon’ble Court passed from time to time the Chief
Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf vide notification
dated 29.06.2017 nominated Smt Shabeeh Fatma, as a
member of the Tribunal and made the Tribunal functional
in terms of the mandate contained in Section 83(4) of
the amended Waqf Act, 1995.
When it was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court in

Civil Revision No. 181 of 2017 that the Registrar of
the Tribunal at Rampur has not been appointed, it was
submitted on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh that
proper arrangements shall be made by the State
Government to make both the Tribunals functional and
just a fortnight before the impugned notification dated
24.08.2017, the State Government vide office
memorandum dated 10.08.2017 appointed the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate as the Registrar of the Tribunal at
Rampur and very interestingly a meeting was convened
on 18.08.2017 by the Department of Minorities Welfare
and Waqf for deliberating on the steps to be taken for
ensuring smooth functioning of the Waqf Tribunals.
48. That thus very clearly the State till 18.08.2017 was
making endeavours to make the Tribunal at Rampur
functional but out of the blue on 24.08.2017, the
Respondent No. 2 whimsically proceeded to abolish the
Tribunal at Rampur. If the act of abolishing the Tribunal
at Rampur was a reasoned one there was no occasion for
the State Government to have proceeded with the
appointment of Smt Shabeeh Fatma as a member of the
Tribunal on 29.06.2017 as well as the appointment of
Registrar of the Tribunal at Rampur on 10.08.2017, just
few days before the issuance of the impugned
notification.
49. That further if the act of abolishing the Tribunal at

Rampur was a reasoned one there was no occasion for
the State Government to have submitted before the
Hon’ble Court that the State Government shall take
appropriate measures to ensure the smooth functioning
of the Tribunal and then to call for a meeting in this
regard on 18.08.2017. That thus it becomes crystal clear
that the issuance of the impugned notification is an act
uninformed by reason and is therefore arbitrary and
hence deserves to be set aside on this count alone as
being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
50. That besides the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017

also violates the fundamental right of access to justice
enshrined in Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
That five judges Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan
(2016) 8 SCC 509 while considering the horizons of the
right of access to justice within the compass of Article 21
and Article 14, after placing reliance on catena of cases
held that:
“Given the fact that pronouncements mentioned above have
interpreted and understood the word "life" appearing in Article
21 of the Constitution on a broad spectrum of rights considered
incidental and/or integral to the right to life, there is no real
reason why access to justice should be considered to be
falling outside the class and category of the said rights,
which already stands recognised as being a part and
parcel of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
If "life" implies not only life in the physical sense but a

bundle of rights that makes life worth living, there is no
juristic or other basis for holding that denial of "access to
justice" will not affect the quality of human life so as to
take access to justice out of the purview of right to life
guaranteed Under Article 21. We have, therefore, no
hesitation in holding that access to justice is indeed a facet
of right to life guaranteed Under Article 21 of the
Constitution. We need only add that access to justice may
as well be the facet of the right guaranteed Under Article 14
of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law
and equal protection of laws to not only citizens but non-
citizens also. We say so because equality before law and
equal protection of laws is not limited in its application to
the realm of executive action that enforces the law. It is as
much available in relation to proceedings before Courts
and tribunal and adjudicatory fora where law is applied and
justice administered. The Citizen's inability to access
courts or any other adjudicatory mechanism provided for
determination of rights and obligations is bound to result
in denial of the guarantee contained in Article 14 both in
relation to equality before law as well as equal protection
of laws. Absence of any adjudicatory mechanism or the
inadequacy of such mechanism, needless to say, is bound
to prevent those looking for enforcement of their right to
equality before laws and equal protection of the laws from
seeking redress and thereby negate the guarantee of
equality before laws or equal protection of laws and reduce
it to a mere teasing illusion. Article 21 of the Constitution
apart, access to justice can be said to be part of the
guarantee contained in Article 14 as well.”
51. That the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 violates

the Petitioners’ and other similarly situated litigants
fundamental right of access to justice as it creates an
inability by compelling the litigants to travel to Lucknow
after covering huge distance to seek redressal for the
breach of their rights. Thus the impugned notification
deters the Petitioner and other litigants from seeking an
enforcement of their rights which results into the denial
of access to justice. That as a consequence of the
impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 there surfaces
inadequacy of the adjudicatory mechanism which as held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anita Kushwaha v.
Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509, is bound to prevent
the litigants from seeking redress and enforcement of
their rights and hence negates the guarantee of equality
before laws or equal protection of laws and reduce it to a
mere teasing illusion.
52. That at this juncture it is apposite to highlight two of the

various facets of the fundamental right of access to
justice viz.
a. That the adjudicatory mechanism must be

reasonably accessible in terms of distance.
b. That the litigant’s access to the adjudicatory
process must be affordable.
53. That the Hon’ble Spreme Court in Anita Kushwaha v.

Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509 further held that:
“What then is the sweep and content of that right is the next
question that must be answered for a fuller understanding of the
principle and its significance in real life situations.
Four main facets that, in our opinion, constitute the
essence of access to justice are: i) The State must provide
an effective adjudicatory mechanism; ii) The mechanism so
provided must be reasonably accessible in terms of
distance; iii) The process of adjudication must be speedy;
and iv) The litigant's access to the adjudicatory process
must be affordable.
………(ii) The mechanism must be conveniently accessible
in terms of distance: The forum/mechanism so provided
must, having regard to the hierarchy of courts/tribunals, be
reasonably accessible in terms of distance for access to
justice since so much depends upon the ability of the
litigant to place his/her grievance effectively before the
court/tribunal/court/competent authority to grant such a
relief.
……..(iv) Access to justice will again be no more than an
illusion if the adjudicatory mechanism provided is so
expensive as to deter a disputant from taking resort to the
same. Article 39A of the Constitution promotes a laudable
objective of providing legal aid to needy litigants and
obliges the State to make access to justice affordable for
the less fortunate sections of the society.
54. That as a consequence of the impugned notification

dated 24.08.2017 the Petitioners and the litigants of the
26 districts who were hitherto amenable to the
jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur would be
forced to undertake a journey to Lucknow after covering
huge distance in order to ventilate their grievance. A
comparative table of the distance which litigants of the
26 districts that hitherto fell within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur would have
to cover henceforth in order to ventilate their grievance
before the Tribunal at Lucknow is formulated hereinbelow
for the convenience of the Hon’ble Court.
Sr. Name of District Distance from Distance from

No. Rampur(approx.) in Lucknow(approx.) in K.Ms
K.Ms.
1. Saharanpur 260 575
2. Muzaffernagar 210 525
3. Shamli 210 525
4. Meerut 150 465
5. Bulundshahr 160 475
6. Ghaziabad 150 465
7. Hapur 127 442
8. Gautambudhnagar 150 465
9. Baghpat 210 525
10. Moradabad 25 340

11. Bijnore 115 430
12. Sambhal 45 360
13. Rampur - 315
14. Amroha 40 355
15. Aligarh 250 565
16. Hathras 280 595
17. Kasganj 200 515
18. Etah 250 500
19. Agra 300 600
20. Firozabad 350 650
21. Mainpuri 300 600
22. Mathura 300 600
23. Badaun 105 300
24. Pilibhit 120 300
25. Shahjahanpur 147 165
26. Bareilly 60 250
55. That on a bare perusal of the comparative table by no

cannons of interpretation and by no stretch of
imagination can it be said that the adjudicatory forum at
Lucknow is reasonably accessible in terms of distance as
the litigants of 25 districts except Shajahanpur will have
to cover nearly twice or thrice and in some cases 10 to
13 times the distance that they would have undertaken
to approach the Tribunal at Rampur. That thus very
clearly the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017
violates the fundamental right of convenient access of
adjudicatory forum in terms of distance, a facet of the
fundamental right of access to justice which is embodied
in Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
56. That moreover sub-section 5 of Section 83 of the Waqf

Act, 1995 provides that the Tribunal shall be deemed to
be a civil court and shall have the same powers as may
be exercised by a civil court under the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit or
executing a decree or order. Since the Tribunal functions
like a civil court therefore the witness will be required to
be examined and hence not only the litigants but also the
witness will have to face the hardship of travelling all the
way to Lucknow from distant places for their
examination. Thus the impugned notification dated
24.08.2017 would cause extreme hardships to the
witness as well.
57. That again when viewed from another angle the

impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 violates the
fundamental right of access to justice. That the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan
(2016) 8 SCC 509 held that that the adjudicatory forum
must, having regards to the hierarchy of
courts/tribunals, be reasonable accessible in terms of
distance. Great emphasis is required to be placed upon
the phrase “having regards to the hierarchy of
courts/tribunals”, thus very clearly the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had envisaged that the courts/tribunals which are
at lowest pedestal in terms of hierarchy must be greater
in number than the appellate courts/tribunals.
58. That thus the need of the hour is to make adjudicatory

forums, especially the courts/tribunals of original
jurisdiction which are at the lowest pedestal, easily and
readily accessible to large chunk of people rather than to
deter litigants from ventilating their grievance and
seeking its redressal by abolishing the Tribunal which
was conveniently accessible to them and forcing them to
access adjudicatory forums which by no stretch of
imagination can be conceived as conveniently accessible.
That when it comes to Waqf Tribunal it must be borne in
mind that by way of the amendment in Section 85 of the
Waqf Act, the jurisdiction every other court has been
ousted and it is only the Waqf Tribunal that shall have
the jurisdiction to hear the disputes pertaining the Waqf
Act. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Shah Baba
Dargah Trust v. Magnum Developers, AIR 2016 SC
381, observed that:
“Even by the 2013 amendment in Section 85 of the Act, they

have also ousted the jurisdiction of the revenue court or any
other authorities along with the civil court. Meaning thereby the
legislatures wanted to make sure that no authorities apart from
the Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Act shall
determine any dispute, question or other matter relating to a
waqf property, eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and
obligations of the lessor and the lessee of such property under
this Act.”
59. That since in matters pertaining to Waqf property, only

the Tribunal and no other adjudicatory forum shall have
the jurisdiction to try the case, the Respondents are duty
bound under the constitutional mandate to establish
multiple Tribunals so as to make the Waqf Tribunals
easily accessible in terms of distance to the litigants.
Thus when visualized from this perspective, the act of
curtailing or reducing the number of Waqf Tribunals by
abolishing them is in contravention and is also
inconsistent with the fundamental right of access to
justice which is envisaged in Article 14 and Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
60. That the notification dated 03.03.2014 by means of

which two Waqf Tribunals one at Lucknow and another at
Rampur were constituted in State of Uttar Pradesh, was
assailed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. -
26356 of 2015 (Mohammad Junaid Aijaz v. Union of
India) before a coordinate Division Bench of this Hon’ble
Court at Allahabad. This Hon’ble Court at Allahabad vide
its order dated 19.05.2015 expressed the following
concern:
“There are seventy five districts in the State of Uttar

Pradesh. The State has constituted only two Tribunals one
each at Lucknow and Rampur….. Moreover, an explanation
would be required from the State Government of why a
decision was taken in particular to constitute only two
tribunals in the entire State one each at Lucknow and
Rampur.”
The Hon’ble Court further observed that:
“Since the object of the Waqf Act, 1995 and more

particularly, Section 87 is to bring about an expert and
speedy resolution of disputes pertaining to Waqfs, it is
necessary that access to justice should not be
discouraged.”
A copy of the aforesaid order dated 19.05.2015 passed

by this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) No. - 26356 of 2015 is annexed
61. That from the above it becomes evident that the concern
of this Hon’ble Court was that in a State with 75 districts
how could only two Tribunals bring about an expert and
speedy resolution of disputes pertaining to Waqf. Thus,
evidently the need is to establish more tribunals for the
effective realization of justice than to abolish them so as
to restrict access to justice.
62. That in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 26356

of 2015, this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad vide order
dated 28.05.2015 issued various directions to the State
Government, the relevant extract of the order dated
28.05.2015 is reproduced hereinbelow for the the ready
reference of this Hon’ble Court.
“The second issue on which, we direct the State Government

to furnish further elucidation is as regards the basis on which a
decision was taken for the Tribunals to be located at Lucknow
and Rampur. Under Section 83 (1), the State Government is
empowered to constitute as many Tribunals as it may think
fit. The place where a Tribunal should be located must
predominantly be founded on facilitating access to justice
and making available all facilities to the litigants.
Another important aspect which must be borne in mind is
that under the preamended provisions of Section 83, the
jurisdiction to deal with disputes pertaining to Waqfs was
vested in a member of the State Judicial Service not below
the rank of District, Sessions or Civil Judge Class I. For
every district, there was one notified Judge exercising
jurisdiction in that regard. If this regime has now been
modified under the amended provisions, the need for
providing speedy and expeditious justice would have to be
borne in mind.”
That this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad further directed the

State Government to apply its mind on the issue that
whether the constitution of Tribunals at any additional
places are warranted having due regard to the pendency
of the cases at those locations. A copy of the aforesaid
order dated 28.05.2015 passed by this Hon’ble Court at
Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.
26356 of 2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure-20 to
63. That in view of the above observation of this Hon’ble

Court it transpires that the effect of the impugned
notification dated 24.08.2017 is that it nullifies the
benefit which was sought to be provided by the
amendment. As observed by the Hon’ble Court the aim
and object of the Amendment Act 2013 was to provide
speedy and expeditious justice and thus Section 83 (1) of
the Waqf Act empowers the State Government to
constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit. The
impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 by abolishing the
Tribunal at Rampur makes the situation worse as in
preamended Act, in each district at least one member
Waqf Tribunal was functioning and the only aim of
amendment was to provide speedy and expeditious
justice by establishing dedicated Tribunals exclusively for
Waqf disputes. That clearly now by not constituting
additional Tribunals and by abolishing the already
constituted tribunals the impugned notification dated
24.08.2017 tends to disrobe the litigants of the benefit of
the Amendment Act 2013 and deserves to be set aside
on this count as well.
64. That at this juncture it is apposite to place reliance on

the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Co-ordianate
Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 26356 of
2015, which pain strikingly sumps up the menace of not
constituting additional Tribunals. The relevant extract of
the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Court
at Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. -
26356 of 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow for the ready
reference of the Hon’ble Court:
“Constituting only two Tribunals at Lucknow and Rampur,

as the State Government has decided to do, will result in a
situation of grave hardship to the common citizens of the
State. The Tribunal has original jurisdiction and is a
Tribunal of first instance. Grave inconvenience would be
caused to common litigants, many of them from the lower
strata of society who would have to travel either to
Lucknow or Rampur for the resolution of smaller issues
pertaining to disputes which come within the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal. Prior to the amendment, these disputes would
have been adjudicated upon by the ordinary civil courts,
which are available at the doorstep of the litigants.
The State Government must have a serious re-look on the

entire matter because, in our opinion, it is necessary to
take all precautions to ensure that the ordinary litigant is
not made to suffer hardship. Having due regard to the large
distances in the State, the litigants would be subjected to
grave hardship because they have to travel either to
Lucknow or Rampur particularly, during extreme summer
as well as winter seasons. As the position stands, the
jurisdiction of forty nine districts has been conferred upon
the Tribunal at Lucknow and twenty six districts upon the
Tribunal at Rampur. The object of setting up the Tribunal is
to ensure that speedy and effective justice is rendered to
the litigants.
A copy of order dated 14.08.2015 passed by this Hon’ble

Court at Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
No. 26356 of 2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure-
65. That thus there can be no two opinions that establishing

more Waqfs Tribunals is not only the need of the hour
but a constitutional obligation on part of the State so as
to make the Waqf Tribunals easily accessible in terms of
distance to the litigants and taking steps to abolish the
Tribunals would violate the mandate contained in Article
14 and 21 of the Constitution besides causing grave
injustice to the common litigants.
66. That moreover the Law Commission of India in its 229 th

Report while recommending for splitting up of National
Court of Appeals observed that:
“The result is that those coming from distant places like

Tamil Nadu in the South, Gujarat in the West and Assam
and other States in the East have to spend huge amount on
travel to reach the Supreme Court. There is a practice of
bringing one's own lawyer who handled the matter in the
High Court to the Supreme Court. That adds to the
cost…….That would not only considerably reduce costs
but also the litigant will have the advantage of his case
being argued by the same advocate who has helped him in
the High Court and who may not required to travel to long
distances.”
This cost benefit ratio was an additional but important

reason for reiterating support to the recommendations
made in the report.
67. That similarly on drawing an analogy it can be said that

the litigants of the 26 districts which were hitherto
amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Rampur
would be forced to travel long distance and would thus
incur huge expenditure, likewise as is the case with most
of the litigants if they bring their local lawyers to the
Tribunal at Lucknow, they would have to incur additional
expenses and the cost benefit analysis also leads to an
inescapable conclusion that impugned notification dated
24.08.2017 by abolishing Tribunal at Rampur makes
access to justice very expensive which deters the litigant
from taking recourse to the same. Those extreme
hardships would be caused to common litigants, many of
whom belong to the lower strata of society as they would
have to travel to Lucknow for the resolution of smaller
issues pertaining to disputes which come within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
68. That evidently as the impugned notification makes

resolution of Waqf dispute expensive and beyond the
affordable means of the poor litigants of the 26 districts
including the Petitioner, the same violates the
fundamental right of access to justice as one of the many
facets of this fundamental right is that the State is under
an obligation to make access to justice affordable to the
less fortunate sections of the society.
69. That yet again when viewed from another angle the
impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 violates the
fundamental right of access to justice. The amalgamation
of jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Rampur with the Waqf
Tribunal at Lucknow would lead to stacking of cases in
the Tribunal at Lucknow which will pursuant to the
notification dated 24.08.2017 have to cater to the needs
of the entire 75 districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
70. That the necessary corollary of stacking and pendency of

cases is that the litigants would be deprived of their
fundamental right of a speedy disposal of the dispute.
71. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in catena of

cases has held that the long delay has the effect of
blatant violation of Rule of Law and causes an adverse
impact on access to justice which is a fundamental right.
Denial of this right undermines public confidence in
justice delivery. That very recently the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Hussain v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702
reiterated this proposition of law.
72. That the fact that the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur was
adequately catering to the needs of the 26 districts that
fell within its territorial jurisdiction can be deciphered
from the data highlighting the total number of cases
instituted in the Tribunal, the total number of cases
pending with the Tribunal and the number of cases
decided by the Tribunal as recorded by this Hon’ble Court
in its order dated 25.07.2017 passed in Civil Revision
No. 181 of 2017, which is already annexed as
Annexure-14 to the instant Writ Petition. That for
convenience of the Hon’ble Court the same is being
reproduced in tabular form hereinbelow:
S/No Name of No. of No. of Total No. of case No. of cases

Tribunal cases cases cases decided pending as
received by instituted on
Tribunal 31.03.2017
1 Waqf Tribunal at 1227 170 1397 50 1347

Lucknow
2 Waqf Tribunal 1431 290 1729 155 1574

at Rampur
73. That though as observed by this Hon’ble Court in the

aforesaid order dated 25.07.2017 passed in Civil
Revision No. 181 of 2017, that majority of the cases in
these Tribunals were being decided by two members only
and thus the the order pronounced by these Tribunals
were void, but the data at least shows and reflects that
the Tribunal at Rampur even though it had only 26
districts was receiving more cases than the Waqf Tribunal
at Lucknow thus it was catering to the needs of the
litigants better than the Tribunal at Lucknow. That it
appears that the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017
was passed in complete obliviousness of the above data
as the only logical conclusion that follows on the perusal
of the above data is that a Waqf Tribunal at Rampur was
imperative taking into consideration the number of cases
pertaining to Waqf property.
74. That efforts ought to have been made by the State
Government to make the Tribunals at Rampur and
Lucknow functional in compliance of various orders
passed by this Hon’ble Court rather than to abolish
Tribunal at Rampur, an act which does not stand true to
the touchstone of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
75. That hence, it is clear that the impugned notification

dated 24.08.2017 is whimsical and capricious as it does
not conforms to the mandate contained in the Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
76. That the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 appears

to have been issued sans application of mind.
77. That the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 does

not withstand the litmus test of reasonableness, fairness
and equity which are the necessary ingredients of every
administrative activity.
78. That the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 is in

blatant violation of the Petitioners’ fundamental right of
convenient access to adjudicatory forum in terms of
distance and hence violate Article 14 and Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
79. That the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 is in

blatant violation of the fundamental right of access to
justice at affordable rates and thus deters the people
belonging to the marginalized section of the society from
ventilate their grievance and claiming redressal of the
same.
80. That the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 violates
the statutory object of the Waqf Act 1995 which was
enacted so as to bring about an expert and speedy
resolution of disputes pertaining to Waqfs.
81. That thus the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 is

clearly illegal, irrational and unsustainable in the eyes of
law.
82. That the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 though

a policy decision, infringes the fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution and is also absolutely
capricious and is not informed by reasons and thus ipse
dixit offends the basic requirement of Article 14 of the
Constitution and hence deserves to be quashed.
83. That the Petitioners vide letter dated 26.08.2017, sent

via speed post, ventilated their grievance before the
Respondent No. 2 and apprised the Respondent No. 2 of
the hardships that would be faced by the Petitioners and
other similarly situated litigants of the affected 26
Districts but the Respondent No. 2 has turned a deaf ear
to the Petitioners grievance and has completely ignored
the fact that the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017
is in continuous violation of the fundamental rights of the
litigants and thus deserves to be set aside. Copies of the
representation moved by the Petitioners to the
Respondent No. 2 with a prayer to set aside the
impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 along with postal
receipts are collectively annexed herewith as Annexure-
22 (Colly) to the instant Writ Petition.
84. That having left with no other alternative, effective and
efficacious remedy, the Petitioner is invoking the extra-
ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court enshrined
under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the
following amongst other grounds:-
GROUNDS
A. Because the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017

before proceeding with the abolition of the Waqf Tribunal
at Rampur does not even remotely assigns a reason for
the action and thus is an act uninformed by reason which
is antithesis to reasonableness and hence is arbitrary.
B. Because if the act of abolishing the Tribunal at Rampur

was a reasoned one there was no occasion for the State
Government to have proceeded with the appointment of
Smt Shabeeh Fatma as a member of the Tribunal on
29.06.2017 as well as the appointment of Registrar of
the Tribunal at Rampur on 10.08.2017, just few days
before the issuance of the impugned notification.
C. Because if the act of abolishing the Tribunal at Rampur

was a reasoned one there was no occasion for the State
Government to have submitted before the Hon’ble Court
that the State Government shall take appropriate
measures to ensure the smooth functioning of the
Tribunal and then to call for a meeting in this regard on
18.08.2017.
D. Because the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017

violates the Petitioners fundamental right of access to
justice enshrined in Article 14 and Article 21 of the
Constitution.
E. Because the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017

violates the Petitioner’s and other similarly situated
litigants fundamental right of access to justice as it
creates an inability by compelling the litigants to travel to
Lucknow after covering huge distance to seek redressal
for the breach of their rights.
F. Because the impugned notification deters the Petitioner

and other litigants from seeking an enforcement of their
rights which results into the denial of access to justice.
G. Because of the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017

there surfaces inadequacy of the adjudicatory mechanism
which is bound to prevent the litigants from seeking
redress and enforcement of their rights and hence
negates the guarantee of equality before laws or equal
protection of laws and reduce it to a mere teasing
illusion.
H. As a consequence of the impugned notification dated

24.08.2017 the Petitioners and the litigants of the 26
districts who were hitherto amenable to the jurisdiction
of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur would be forced to
undertake a journey to Lucknow after covering huge
distance in order to ventilate their grievance which
violates the Petitioners fundamental right of convenient
access of adjudicatory forum in terms of distance, a facet
of the fundamental right of access to justice.
I. Because the need of the hour is to make adjudicatory
forums, especially the courts/tribunals of original
jurisdiction which are at the lowest pedestal, easily and
readily accessible to large chunk of people rather than to
deter litigants from ventilating their grievance and
seeking its redressal by abolishing the Tribunal which
was conveniently accessible to them.
J. Because the effect of the impugned notification dated

24.08.2017 is that it nullifies the benefit which was
sought to be provided by the 2013 amendment.
K. Because the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 by

abolishing the Tribunal at Rampur makes the situation
worse as in preamended Act, in each district at least one
member Waqf Tribunal was functioning and the only aim
of amendment was to provide speedy and expeditious
justice by establishing dedicated Tribunals exclusively for
Waqf disputes.
L. Because now by not constituting additional Tribunals and

by abolishing the already constituted tribunals the
impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 tends to disrobe
the litigants of the benefit of the Amendment Act 2013.
M. Because the impugned notification makes resolution of

Waqf dispute expensive and beyond the affordable
means of the poor litigants of the 26 districts including
the Petitioner and the same violates the fundamental
right of access to justice as one of the many facets of this
fundamental right is that the State is under an obligation
to make access to justice affordable to the less fortunate
sections of the society.
N. Because the amalgamation of jurisdiction of the Tribunal
at Rampur with the Waqf Tribunal at Lucknow would lead
to stacking of cases in the Tribunal at Lucknow.
O. Because a necessary corollary of stacking of cases is that

the litigants would be deprived of their fundamental right
of a speedy disposal of the dispute.
P. Because the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017

violates the statutory object of the Waqf Act 1995 which
was enacted so as to bring about an expert and speedy
resolution of disputes pertaining to Waqfs.
Q. Because the impugned order dated 24.08.2017 though a

policy decision, infringes the fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution and is also absolutely
capricious and is not informed by reasons and thus ipse
dixit offends the basic requirement of Article 14 of the
Constitution and hence deserves to be quashed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

Certiorari quashing the impugned notification dated
24.08.2017, whereby the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur
has been abolished. A copy whereof is annexed as
Annexure-1 to this writ petition.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the Respondents to resume
the functioning of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur in a
smooth manner.
III. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this

Hon’ble deems fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.
IV. Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the

petitioners.
Lucknow (Gaurav Mehrotra)
Dated Advocate
Counsel for Petitioner

CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. (W) OF 2017
In Re
1. Mohd. Kasim, aged about 53 years, son of Shri Hassu

Shah, resident of Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, Rewadi Mohalla,
Etah, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Ashok Kumar Shivhare, aged about 50 years, son of Shri

Ram Nath Shivhare, resident of Agra 13/15 halka madan,
Agra fort, Kiraoli Agra-282003.
3. Farzand Ali, aged about 50 years, son of Shri Ali Akhtar,

resident of A118, Block A to F Noor Nagar Johri Farma
Delhi- 110025.
….PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Minority

Welfare and Waqf, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.
2. Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf, U.P. Civil

Secretariat, Lucknow.
…..RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF
For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the

accompanying writ petition, duly supported with an affidavit, it
is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to to stay the operation and implementation of the
impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 and further grant an
ad interim mandamus commanding the Respondents to resume
the functioning of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur in a smooth
manner, subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition.
Further, such other orders which this Hon’ble Court
deems, just and proper may also be passed protecting the
rights and interest of the Petitioners, in the interest of justice.
Lucknow Gaurav Mehrotra
Dated Advocate
(Counsel for the Petitioners)

Mohd. Kasim and Others …………. Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others ..……… Respondents
Dates and Events
S/No Date Events

01 03.03.2014 The State Government in exercise of
powers conferred by sub-section (4) of
Section 83, constituted two three member
Waqf tribunals, one at Lucknow and
another at Rampur.
02 -- Though the State Government by
notification dated 03.03.2014 constituted
the three member Tribunal, but the State
Government showing complete apathy and
lackadaisical attitude did not make the
three member Tribunal functional by
appointing the members of the Tribunal.
03 08.10.2014 This Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in Writ C
No. 52075 of 2014 came down heavily
on the State Government in its uncarrying
attitude of not making the Tribunal
functional and directed the Secretary
Minority Welfare, Government of Uttar
Pradesh to file personal affidavit as to why
the State Government has not found it
proper to constitute the Waqf Tribunal in
terms of Section 83 of the Waqf Act.
04 09.12.2015 The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar
Pradesh in Writ C No. 59690 of 2015
submitted before the Hon’ble Court that
the Tribunal at Rampur was still to be
made functional as the Chairman of the
Tribunal at Rampur could not be
appointed.
05 27.01.2016 The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court vide
notification dated 27.01.2016 appointed
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Nain, Additional District
and Session Judge, Kaushambi as the
Chairman, Waqf Tribunal, Rampur.
06 -- Even though the Chairman as well as one
member of the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur,
were appointed but the sad affair of the
apathy and indolence on part of the State
continued as the Tribunal was functioning
only with two members
07 09.02.2016 The Chairman, Waqf Tribunal, Rampur
requested the District Magistrates of the
26 Districts which fell within the territorial
jurisdiction of Rampur Waqf Tribunal, to
transfer all the pending cases pertaining
to the Waqf Act 1995 to the Waqf Tribunal
at Rampur.
08 21.03.2016 The Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf
requested the Registrar General of the
Hon’ble High Court to issue appropriate
directions to all the courts within the
supervisory jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
High Court to transfer all pending cases
pertaining to Waqf Act 1995 which fell
within the territorial jurisdiction of Waqf
Tribunal at Rampur.
09 13.04.2016 The Registrar General of the Hon’ble High
Court requested the District Judges of the
26 districts which fell within the territorial
jurisdiction of Rampur Waqf Tribunal, to
transfer all the pending cases in the court
of Civil Judge (Senior Division) pertaining
to the Waqf Act 1995 to the newly formed
Waqf Tribunal at Rampur.
10 21.11.2016 The Secretary, Niyukti Anubhag appointed
Shri Martand Pratap Singh, Additional
District Magistrate (F/R), Rampur as the
second member of the Waqf Tribunal with
immediate effect.
11 29.06.2017 The Chief Secretary, Minority Welfare and
Waqf nominated Smt Shabeeh Fatma,
Advocate as third member of the Waqf
Tribunal at Rampur.
12 25.07.2017 The Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in Civil
Revision No. 181 of 2017, observed
that the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur was not
functioning smoothly.
13 -- The affidavit filed by the Principal
Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf,
Government of Uttar Pradesh brought to
light the sorry state of affairs. It emerged
that though the appointment of three
members as contemplated in the amended
Section 83(4) of the Waqf Act were made
but except the Chairman, the two other
members were not functioning. The
saddest part was that neither there was
any appointment of Registrar of Rampur
Waqf Tribunal nor a single post of the
supporting staff was filled.
14 08.08.2017 The State of Uttar Pradesh submitted
before this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in
Civil Revision No. 181 of 2017 that
proper arrangements shall be made by the
State Government to make both the
Tribunals at Rampur and Lucknow
functional.
15 10.08.2017 The Special Secretary, Niyukti Anubhag
appointed Shri Ballu Prassad, Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Rampur as the
Registrar Waqf Tribunal.
16 16.08.2017 The Joint Secretary, Minority Welfare and
Wakf informed the Chairman of the Waqf
Tribunal at Rampur that this Hon’ble Court
at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 181 of
2017, had expressed its displeasure about
the state of affairs relating to the
functioning of the Tribunal at Rampur and
that necessary measures were therefore
required to be taken for ensuring the
smooth functioning of the Tribunal at
Rampur and hence requested the
Chairman to attend a meeting that was to
be convened on 18.08.2017 for
deliberating on the steps to be taken for
ensuring smooth functioning of the Waqf
Tribunals.
17 24.08.2017 That out of the blue in the most arbitrary
and whimsical manner and without
assigning any reasons the State
Government by way of the impugned
notification dated 24.08.2017 abolished
the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur and
amalgamated the jurisdiction of the Waqf
Tribunal at Rampur into the Waqf Tribunal
at Lucknow, thereby making a mockery of
the justice system, besides violating the
Petitioners’ fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India.
18 -- Hence this Writ Petition
Lucknow (Gaurav Mehrotra)

Dated: .08.2017 Advocate
Counsel for the Petitioner
Versus
INDEX
S.No. Particulars Pg.

No.
1. Dates and Events
2. Application for Interim Relief on behalf of
the Petitioners.
3. Memo of Writ Petition
4. Annexure-1
A copy of the impugned notification dated
24.08.2017
5. Annexure-2
A copy of the plaint filed by the Petitioner
in Waqf Case No. 80/2016
6. Annexure-3
A copy of the aforesaid notification dated
03.03.2014 whereby the two Waqf
Tribunals were constituted in State of
Uttar Pradesh.
7. Annexure-4
A copy of the order dated 08.10.2014
passed in Writ C No. 52075 of 2014 by
this Hon’ble Court
8. Annexure-5
passed in Writ C No. 59690 of 2015 by
this Hon’ble Court
9. Annexure-6
A Copy of the notification dated
27.01.2016 released by the Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court in relation to the
appointment of the Chairman, Waqf
Tribunal.
10. Annexure-7
A copy of the letter dated 09.02.2017 by
the Chairman Waqf Tribunal Rampur to
the District Magistrates of the 26
districts.
11. Annexure-8
the Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf
to the Registrar General of this Hon’ble
Court.
12. Annexure-9
the Registrar General to the the District
Judges of the 26 districts to transfer file
of all pending cases pertaining to Waqf
matters.
13. Annexure-10
the Special Secretary, Minority Welfare
and Wakf to the Chairman of the Waqf
Tribunal at Rampur informing him about
the appointment of ADM Rampur as
member of the Tribunal.
14. Annexure-11
A copy of the order dated 24.11.2016 of
this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in Civil
Revision No. 358 of 2016
15. Annexure-12(Colly)
Copies of the appointment notification
dated 29.06.2017 and the certificate to
the effect that Smt Shabeeh Fatma has
assumed the charges as member of the
Waqf Tribunal at Rampur
16. Annexure-13
passed by this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad
in Civil Revision No. 181 of 2017
17. Annexure-14
18. Annexure-15
A copy of the chart exhibiting the posts
created and the appointments made to
such post in relation to the Waqf Tribunal
at Rampur filed by the Principal
Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf as
a part of Counter Affidavit in Civil
Revision No. 181 of 2017.
19. Annexure-16
20. Annexure-17
A copy of the office memorandum dated
10.08.2017 whereby the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Rampur was appointed as the
Registrar Waqf Tribunal, Rampur.
21. Annexure-18
A copy of letter dated 16.08.2017 by the
Joint Secretary, Minority Welfare and
Waqf to the Chairman Waqf Tribunal,
Rampur requesting him to participate in
the meeting to be convened on
18.08.2017
22. Annexure-19
A copy of order dated 19.05.2015 passed
by this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.
26356 of 2015
23. Annexure-20
26356 of 2015
24. Annexure-21
26356 of 2015
25. Annexure-22 (Colly)
Copies of the representation moved by
the Petitioners to the Respondent No. 2
with a prayer to set aside the impugned
notification dated 24.08.2017 along with
postal receipts.
26. 4
Identity Proof
27. Affidavit
28. Vakalatnama
Lucknow Gaurav Mehrotra

Dated Advocate
(Counsel for Petitioner)
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mohd. Kasim aged about 53 years, son of Shri Hassu

Shah, resident of Shiv Mandir Wali Gal, Rewadi Mohalla, Etah,
having religious persuasion Islam, Tailor by profession, having
educational qualification Junior High School, the Deponent do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath hereunder:-
1. That the deponent is Petitioner No. 1 in the above noted

writ petition and has been authorized to do pairvi on behalf of
Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as such is well conversant with the
facts and circumstances of the case deposed hereunder.
2. That the contents of paragraphs 1, 2P, 3-5, 7-15, 17, 18,

20, 24, 32, 40, 41, 44, 46-49, 51, 52, 54-59, 61, 63, 65-71,
73-82 and 83P of the accompanying Writ Petition are true to
my personal knowledge and belief, while those of paragraphs
2P, 6, 16, 19, 21-23, 25-31, 33-39, 60, 62, 64, 72 and 83P
believed to be true by me on the basis of information gathered
from records and also paragraphs 42, 43, 45, 50 and 53 are
based on legal advice. (Where (P) denotes part)
3. That Annexure 1 to 22 of the accompanying Writ Petition

are true/photocopies of their respective originals, which are
found to be true and compared by the deponent.
LUCKNOW
DATED:- DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent above named hereby verify that the
paragraphs 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true to my knowledge.
No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed.
So help me God. Signed and verified this day of ,
2017.
LUCKNOW
DATED:- DEPONENT
IDENTIFICATION
I, Ravi Shankar, Clerk of Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate,

Chamber at 498/206-12A, Ram Krishna Marg, Near IT College,
Faizabad Road, Lucknow, declare that I am satisfied on the
grounds stated below that the person making this affidavit and
alleging himself to be Mohd. Kasim is that very person.
Grounds:
Identity proof of Mohd. Kasim which has been shown to me
and a copy whereof is also annexed. (Annexure A)
Identified by
Ravi Shankar
Solemnly affirmed before me by the deponent Mohd. Kasim on

________2017, at ……………..a.m./p.m. who has been identified
by Ravi Shankar, Clerk of Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate,
Chamber at 498/206-12A, Ram Krishna Marg, Near IT College,
Faizabad Road, Lucknow. I have satisfied myself by examining
the deponent that he understands the contents of this affidavit
which have been read over and explained to him by me.
LUCKNOW
DATED:- DEPONENT

Challenge To Validity of Notification Abolishing Rampur Waqf Tribunal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenge To Validity of Notification Abolishing Rampur Waqf Tribunal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

WRIT PETITION NO. (M/B) OF 2017

1. Mohd. Kasim, aged about 53 years, son of Shri Hassu

2. Ashok Kumar Shivhare, aged about 50 years, son of Shri

3. Farzand Ali, aged about 50 years, son of Shri Ali Akhtar,

1. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Minority

2. Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf, U.P. Civil

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other Hon’ble Companion

01. That the Petitioners declare that no other Writ Petition,

02. That the Petitioners beg to assail the constitutionality and

That though the Waqf Tribunal at Rampur was

That out of the blue in a complete departure of the

That when the circumstances which unfolded before the

That besides the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017

That the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 violates

The impugned notification dated 24.08.2017 leads to a

That thus establishing more Waqfs Tribunals is not only

That moreover the impugned notification makes

That the amalgamation of jurisdiction of the Tribunal at

That hence in these circumstances the impugned

04. That the Petitioner No. 1 is a resident of Etah and has

05. That the Petitioner No. 2 is a resident of Agra and Waqf

07. That prior to the amendment of the Waqf Act, 1995, by

08. That under sub-section (4) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act

09. That the State Government in exercise of power

“44. Amendment of Section 83:- In Section 83 of the principal

(a) for sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be

“(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official

(b) for sub-section (4), the following sub-sections shall be

“(4) Every Tribunal shall consist of-

(a) one person, who shall be a member of the State

(b) one person, who shall be an officer from the State

(c) one person having knowledge of Muslim law and

and the appointment of every such person shall be

(4-A) The terms and conditions of appointment including the

12. That as a result of the provisions of Amending Act No. 27

13. That evidently, after amendment sub-section (1) of

14. That moreover after amendment, sub-section (4) of the

15. That there is no gainsaying that the laudable object of

“The idea of expanding the composition by the 2013

16. That vide notification No: 360/52-2-14-2(279)-13, dated

17. That even though the State Government by notification

18. That such uncarrying attitude of the State Government in

19. That this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.10.2014

20. That similarly a coordinate Division Bench of this Hon’ble

“Under Section 83(1) of the Act, the State Government is

“42. Before parting with the order we record our serious

23. That the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court vide notification

24. That even though the Chairman as well as one member

25. That vide letter dated 09.02.2016, the Chairman, Waqf

26. That vide letter dated 21.03.2016, the Secretary,

27. That vide letter dated 13.04.2016 the Registrar General

28. That vide order dated 21.11.2016 the Secretary, Niyukti

29. That though this Hon’ble Court in Civil Revision No.

30. That it was only on 29.06.2017 that the Chief Secretary,

31. That a Civil Revision, Civil Revision No. 179 of 2017

A copy of the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the

32. That the Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf,

33. That the Hon’ble Court at Allahabad in Civil Revision

Fistly, due to non appointment of Members of the