High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Present:- Shri U.K.Agnihotri vs It Prays For A Mandamus Directing on 30 October, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Present:- Shri U.K.Agnihotri vs It Prays For A Mandamus Directing on 30 October, 2008
THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

                   ***

CWP No. 18601 of 2008.

Date of Decision: October 30, 2008.

***

Ajmat and others Versus Haryana Wakf Board and others.

***
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CJ AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH.

Present:- Shri U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioners.

***
T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral)

This writ petition purports to have been filed in Public Interest.

It prays for a Mandamus directing respondent No.1, Haryana Wakf Board

to renovate and reconstruct the mosque which is lying in a dilapidated

condition in Village Devru, Tehsil and District Sonipat. The petitioners who

happen to be residents of the said Village appear to have made

representations to the Wakf Board, copies whereof have been enclosed as

Annexure P-6 and P-7, to the writ petition, requesting the Board to take

steps for renovation and restoration of the mosque. These representations

have, according to the petitioners, remained unattended by the Wakf Board

authorities, leaving no option for the petitioners except to file the present

petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are

about 160 Mohammedan families with a population of about 700 live in

Village Devru. The mosque in question, according to learned counsel for

the petitioners, is the only place of worship available to the said community.

It is further argued that although the Wakf Board has sufficient funds at its

disposal to carry out repair and renovation work in the mosque, the needful

has not been done for the reasons best known to the authorities. The

Wakf Board has not even allowed the petitioners and the residents of the
CWP No. 18601 of 2008. -2-

Village to carry out the repair themselves although they had offered to do

so. In the circumstances and keeping in view the neglect and apathy of

the Wakf Board authorities, this Court could intervene to issue appropriate

directions in public interest.

We have given our careful consideration to the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record,

which includes certain photographs enclosed by the petitioners. From a

perusal of the said photographs, it is evident that the mosque in question is

indeed in a poor condition and needs to be suitably repaired and made

functional for the benefit of the Muslim community residing in the afore-

mentioned village. Representations made by the petitioners and other

residents of the Village to the Wakf Board also do not appear to have been

examined nor any steps have been taken by the Board for carrying-out

repairs to the structures that are slowly crumbling down.

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the least that

ought to be done is to direct the Wakf Board authorities to examine the

representations, Annexures P-6 and P-7, to the writ petition and take

appropriate decision under intimation to the petitioners through their

counsel. We do not consider it necessary to issue any notice to the

respondents keeping in view the innocuous order that we are making. We,

however, reserve liberty to the Wakf Board – respondents to seek recall of

this order if they are, or any reason opposed to the consideration and

disposed of the representation filed by the petitioners. The writ petition is,

accordingly disposed of with the direction that representations, Annexures

P-6 and P-7, to the writ petition shall be examined by the competent

authority in the Haryana Wakf Board and appropriate decision on the same

taken expeditiously but not later than six months from the date, a copy of

this order along with a copy of each of the said representation is served

upon the Secretary to the Board by counsel for the petitioners. Liberty is
CWP No. 18601 of 2008. -3-

reserved to the petitioners to seek appropriate redress if the decision taken

by the Wakf Board, does not grant any redress to them. No costs.

(T.S.Thakur)
Chief Justice

(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
October 30, 2008.

Malik