The Allahabad High Court, sitting at its Lucknow Bench, addressed a matter concerning the functionality of the Waqf Tribunal in the State of Uttar Pradesh, observing that due to existing vacancies within that Tribunal, “no effective hearing” was taking place before it. This observation and corresponding request were made in the context of disposing of a writ petition filed by an individual identified as Faisal Khan. The Bench that heard and passed the order comprised Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla. The order was passed on a Monday, and while disposing of the petition, the Court declined to entertain the substantive prayers contained in the writ petition, but nonetheless made specific requests of the State Government regarding institutional vacancies. At the heart of the matter was not only the petitioner’s grievance but also broader concerns about the administrative functioning of the Waqf Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh, which arose in the legal backdrop against which the petitioner’s litigation unfolded.
The matter concerned a dispute over the appointment of a Mutawalli, and specifically the petitioner’s challenge to an order that had recalled his appointment as Mutawalli. The petitioner, when faced with the recall of his appointment as Mutawalli, had previously approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to exercise its power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. In his original approach under Article 227, he challenged the order that had recalled his appointment as Mutawalli. In the course of dealing with that petition, before a Single Judge of the High Court in July 2025, it was noted that the petitioner had made a submission that he had first approached the Waqfs Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, in relation to his grievance. The Waqf Act, 1995, contains within its statutory framework provisions for the establishment and functioning of Waqf Tribunals to hear appeals and adjudicate disputes concerning matters connected to Waqf properties and appointments, among other related issues.
However, according to the petitioner’s submission before the Single Judge, when he attempted to approach the Waqfs Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, that Tribunal was not functional, effectively precluding him from obtaining relief through that statutory avenue. The absence of functionality of the Waqf Tribunal at that time was significant in the petitioner’s legal strategy and his approach to the High Court. On the other side, the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, which was a party to the litigation, referred to the amendment to Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which had been made to address situations in which the Tribunal was not constituted or was not functioning. This amendment provided that in the absence of a Tribunal or if the Tribunal was not functioning, an aggrieved person may appeal directly to the High Court. The Board’s reference to this amended provision was central to the legal argument that in the absence of a functional Tribunal, the statutory framework permitted direct appeal to the High Court.
In light of this amended provision in the Waqf Act, the Single Judge declined to entertain the petition under Article 227, observing that the remedy available to the petitioner lay in preferring an appeal, in accordance with law, rather than in invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 227. The Single Judge, however, granted the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal, if so advised, in accordance with law. This liberty to prefer an appeal in accordance with the statutory provision was central to the Single Judge’s disposition of the earlier petition. Instead of acting on the liberty granted by the Single Judge to prefer an appeal under the amended Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the petitioner filed a second writ petition before the Division Bench of the High Court. This second writ petition, which was filed despite the earlier order and the liberty granted to the petitioner, became the subject matter of the order passed by the Division Bench consisting of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla.
The Division Bench, upon hearing the second writ petition, refused to entertain it on the basis that the petitioner had already been granted liberty to file an appeal under the statutory provision. The Bench noted that a second writ petition had been filed instead of an appeal, and on that basis refused to entertain the petition on its merits. However, the Division Bench, while declining to entertain the petition on its merits, did not confine itself purely to procedural observations. It took the occasion of the petition to note a substantive institutional issue, specifically that there was a vacancy in the Waqf Tribunal in the State of Uttar Pradesh and that, as a result, no effective hearing was taking place before the Tribunal. This observation highlighted concerns about the practical availability of the statutory remedy in the Waqf Tribunal, given the Tribunal’s institutional vacancy.
In light of these observations, the Bench requested the State Government to look into the issue of the vacancy in the Waqf Tribunal and to make an appointment to the Tribunal expeditiously, in accordance with the law. The language used by the Bench made clear that the concern was not only about the individual petitioner’s grievance but also about ensuring that the statutory mechanism of the Waqf Tribunal was functional so that aggrieved persons could secure an effective hearing before that body. To ensure that the State Government would take note of the Court’s request, the Bench directed that the Senior Registrar of the High Court communicate the order to the State Government. In providing these directions and requests, the Court disposed of the petition with these directions to the State Government to fill the vacancy in the Waqf Tribunal.
The case was captioned as Faisal Khan vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board through Chief Executive, Lucknow, and others, and is reported as 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 38. The proceedings reflected the intersection of statutory interpretation of the Waqf Act, 1995, procedural considerations regarding the appropriate forum for legal redress, and institutional concerns about vacancies within tribunals established under the statute. The narrative unfolded against the backdrop of an initial petition under Article 227, a Single Judge’s order declining to entertain that petition but granting liberty to prefer an appeal, the petitioner’s subsequent filing of a second writ petition, and the Division Bench’s order declining to entertain the second petition while simultaneously drawing attention to the institutional vacancy.
The Allahabad High Court’s order thus combined procedural jurisprudence with administrative concern. The Bench’s refusal to entertain the second writ petition was grounded in procedural propriety, given the petitioner’s earlier liberty to appeal under the statute. At the same time, the Court’s request to the State Government underscores judicial sensitivity to the institutional infrastructure for adjudication of Waqf-related disputes. Vacancies in adjudicatory bodies such as the Waqf Tribunal can have practical implications for access to justice, and the Bench’s observation that no effective hearing was taking place highlighted the urgency of addressing such vacancies.
The direction to communicate the order to the State Government through the Senior Registrar also reflected a mechanism by which the Court sought to ensure that its concerns were formally brought to the attention of the executive branch. The combination of declining to entertain the writ petition and issuing directions regarding the Tribunal’s vacancy exemplifies how courts can navigate between strictly adjudicatory functions and broader institutional concerns when disposing of litigation. The outcome, as recorded, was the disposal of the petition with directions aimed at addressing the institutional issue of vacancies in the Waqf Tribunal.
In summary, the Allahabad High Court, while handling a writ petition filed by Faisal Khan challenging the recall of his appointment as Mutawalli and his procedural misstep in filing a second writ petition, noted the institutional issue that the Waqf Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh had vacancies that affected its ability to function effectively. The Court observed that due to the vacancy, no effective hearing was taking place before the Tribunal, and in light of this, requested the State Government to make appointments to the Waqf Tribunal expeditiously in accordance with the law, directing that its order be communicated to the State Government through the Senior Registrar, and disposed of the petition with these directions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.