RAJA KHANversusU.P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD & ANR.

              [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1131

                         RAJA KHAN                                A
                             v.
      U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD & ANR.
    (Special Leave Petition(CIVIL) No. 31797 of 2009)
                   NOVEMBER 26, 2010
                                                                  B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

     Constitution of India, 1950:
       Article 226 - Writ petition involving landed property -
 Territorial jurisdiction of Benches of the High Court - Writ C
petition filed in Allahabad Bench of High Court for allotment
 on lease of the land situate in the district falling within the
jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court - Single
Judge entertaining the writ petition and in an application for
 interim relief granting the relief claimed in the writ petition - D
 Division Bench of the High Court setting aside th9 orders of
 the single Judge - HELD: The writ petition could not have
been validly filed or entertained in the Allahabad Bench -
 Besides, by the ex-pare orders, the writ petition has been
practically allowed - Division Bench has rightly set aside the E
interim orders of the Single Judge, as the same were clearly
passed for extraneous considerations - A Jot of complaints
 are coming against certain Judges of the High Court - Chief
Justice of the High Court requested to do the needful - Suit
- Territorial jurisdiction - Interim orders - Relief -             F
 Administration of Justice.
     The petitioner presented a suit in the civil court of
District Hamirpur (within the jurisdiction of Allahabad
Bench of the High Court) with regard to allotment on
lease, for the purposes of 'Mela', of certain land situate        G
in district Bahraich (within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow
Bench of the High Court) belonging to the Wakf. The
Munsarim made a report that the suit was not cognizable

                             1131                                 H
    1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A at Hamirpur for the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The
  petitioner filed a writ petition in the Allahabad Bench of
  the High Court. The Single Judge, by interim order dated
  11.6.2010 and 18.6.2010 directed allotment of the land to
  the petitioner in the 'Mela area' and compliance of the
8 orders. However, the Division Bench set aside the interim
  orders passed by the Single Judge. Aggrieved, the
  petitioner filed the petition for special leave.
        Dismissing the petition, the Court

c       HELD:
        1.1 The ex-parte orders passed by the Single Judge
   are shocking to say the least and were clearly passed on
   extraneous considerations for the reasons: (i} The
   property in question is in the District of Bahraich which
D is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench
   of the Allahabad High Court. Threfore, the writ petition
   could not have been validly filed or entertained in the
   Allahabad Bench of the High Court.* (ii) The writ petition
   was not maintainable because ordinarily no writ petition
E lies against a private body; (iii) By the ex-parte order
   dated 11.6.2010 the writ petition has been practically
   allowed since by that ex-parte order the respondents
   have been directed to allot the land to the petitioner for
   the purpose of running circus etc., and possession of the
F allocated land was directed to be handed over within
   three days. Subsequently, on 18.6.2010, the same Single
   Judge passed an order directing the District Magistrate
  ·and SP, Bahraich to take appropriate action for
   compliance of the earlier order. It is well settled that by
G an interim order the final relief should not be granted.**
   (iv) The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before
   the Lucknow Bench of the High Court which was
   dismissed on 19.5.2010 with liberty to approach the
   District Magistrate by making a representation. The
H petitioner made a representation which was decided by
RAJA KHAN v. U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD1133


the District Magistrate on 21.5.2010 with the direction to         A
the Committee of Management of the Waqf to reconsider
the petitioner's claim for allotment of land. The petitioner
then filed another writ petition before the Lucknow Bench
challenging the order of the District Magistrate. This writ
petition was dismissed on 28.5.2010 by the Division                B
Bench of the Lucknow Bench observing that the second
writ petition for the same relief was not maintainable, as
earlier, the writ petition filed by the petitioners for the
same relief,. had been dismissed as withdrawn by order
dated 19.5.2010; and that the dispute like this nature,            c
since cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, the High
Court did not entertain the earlier petition and, for the
same reason, the second petition was also not
maintainable. [para 11) [1137-D-H; 1138-A-F; 1139-C-H;
1140-A]                                                            D
     *Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal
1976(1) SCR 505 =AIR 1976 SC 331; **U.P. Junior Doctors
Action Committee vs. Dr. B. Sheeta/ Nandwani, AIR 1992 SC
671; and State of U.P. vs. Ram Sukhi Devi, 2004 (5) Suppl.
SCR 74 = JT 2004(8) SC 264 - relied on.                            E
     1.2 The petitioner then filed a civil suit before the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, but when an objection
was raised about territorial jurisdiction, he filed the writ
petition on which the ex-parte orders dated 11.6.2010 and
18.6.2010 were passed by the Single Judge of Allahabad
                                                                   F
Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High
Court has rightly set aside the interim orders of the Single
Judge dated 11.6.2010 and 18.6.2010. [para 7 and 14]
[1135-F-G; 1140-G-H)
                                                                   G
     2. A lot of complaints are coming against certain
Judges of the Allahabad High Court. Some Judges have
their kith and kin practising in the same High Court and
within a few years of practice, they have huge bank
balances etc. But, it does not mean that all lawyers, who          H
    1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A have close relations as Judges of the High Court, are
  misusing that relationship. Some are scrupulously taking
  care that no one should lift a finger on this account. There
  are other serious complaints also against some Judges
  of the High Court. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High
B Court is requested to do the needful, even if he has to
  take some strong measures, including recommending
  transfers of the incorrigibles. [para 16-19] [1141-B-F]
                         Case Law Reference:

c       1976(1) SCR 505             relied on           para 11
        AIR 1992 SC 671             relied on           para 11
        2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 74 relied on                para 11
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
D 31797 of 2010.
        From the Judgment & Order dated 05.08.2010 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 973 of
    2010.
E      Anis Suhrawardy, S. Mehdi Imam, Tabrez Ahmed, Parvez
    Dabas for he Petitioner.
       The following order of the Court was delivered
                               ORDER
F
        1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
        2. "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark", said
  Shakespeare in Hamlet, and it can similarly be said that
  something is rotten in the Allahabad High Court, as this case
G illustrates.
       3. This petition has been filed against the impugned
  judgment passed by a division Bench of the High Court of
  Allahabad dated 5.8.2010 in Special Appeal No. 973 of 2010.
H By that judgment the ex-parte interim orders of the Single
RAJA KHAN v. U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD1135


Judge of the High Court dated 11.6.2010 and 18.6.2010                  A
passed in Writ Petition No. 34595/2010 have been set aside.

      4. The brief facts of the case are that there is a LJargah
known as 'Dargah Hazrat Syed Salar Masood Ghazi R.A.' in
district Bahraich, U.P. which is managed by the Committee of           B
Management of Waqf no.19.

     5. The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of circuses
e.g. Great Gemini Circus, Apollo Circus, Raj Mahal Circus and
Asiad Circus, and also runs a Jhoola (cradle) for entertaining
the public at large. The petitioner does touring and runs the          C
aforesaid circuses and jhoola in 'Melas' and other places of
public gathering.

      6. In the aforesaid dargah a Mela is held in the month of
Jeth, known as 'Jeth Mela', Bahraich for a period of 40 days. It       0
is alleged by the petitioner that in the past several years the
Waqf has been allotting plot nos.1760 to 1770 and 1826 to
1834 belonging to it on lease to the petitioner for holding the
Jeth Mela. However, in 2010 the Waqf refused to allot the said
land for Jeth Mela to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner twice       E
filed writ petitions in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High
Court which were dismissed. It may be mentioned that
Bahraich is a district in erstwhile Avadh, which is under the
jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court.

     7. The petitioner then filed a suit in district Hamirpur being    F
Suit no.54/70/10 of 2010 and when an objection was raised
about territorial jurisdiction he filed the writ petition being Writ
Petition no.34595 of 2010 in the Allahabad Bench of the High
Court on which the ex-pa rte interim orders dated 11.6.201 O and
18.6.2010 were passed by the Single Judge of the Allahabad             G
Bench of the High Court.

     8. The order of the single Judge dated 11.6.201 O reads
as follows:

     "Issue notice to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.                      H
    1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A             The said respondents are directed to file counter
       affidavit within 6 weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be
       filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter.

       The grievance of the petitioner is that for the last several
       years the petitioner is allotted land, for installing Circus,
8      Jhoola, Merry go round, swing for amusement area for the
       children and visitors of Mela in the premises of Dargah
       Sharif during the annual Urs in the month of Jeth (May and
       June).

c             Accordingly the respondent Nos .. 2, 3 and 4 are
       directed to allot land in the Mela at waqf No. 19, Dargah
       Sharif, Bahraich over Plot Nos. 1760 to 1770 and 1826
       to 1884, details of which have been given in the writ
       petition, to the petitioner for the purpose of running Circus,
D      Jhoola, Merry go round swing etc. If the petitioner pays
       required rent lease, the possession of the allocated land
       shall be handed over the petitioner within 3 days.

       Order Date:- 11.06.2010".

E      9. The order dated 18.6.2010 reads as follows :

             "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
       learned standing counsel.

             Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the
F      grievance that despite earlier order of this Court dated
       11.6.2010, the petitioner has not been allotted land in the
       Mela area. The very purpose of filing the writ petition would
       be frustrated if the petitioner is not allotted the land for
       running circus/Jhula in the Meal area.
G                                                 ,.<

             The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of
       Police, Bahraich are directed to pass appropriate order
       in compliance of the order of this court dated 11.6.2010,
       since the petitioner has not been allotted land in the Mela
H      area. The very purpose of filing the writ petition would be
RAJA KHAN v. U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD1137


     frustrated if the petitioner is not allotted the land for running   A
     circus/Jhula in the Mela area.

           The District Magistrate and the superintendent of
     Police, Bahraich are directed to pass appropriate order
     in compliance of the order of this court dated 11.6.2010            8
     and allot appropriate plot to the petitioner and file affidavit
     of compliance.

          Put up this case on 16.7.2010 before appropriate
     bench for hearing. The concerned officers or any other
     senior officer authorized by them shall file affidavit of           C
     compliance by 28.~.2010.

     Order Date:- 18.6.2010".

     10. The above orders are shocking to say the least.
                                                                         D
      11. We are of the opinion that the above two ex-parte
interim orders of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court
were clearly passed on extraneous considerations. This is for
the following reasons :
                                                                         E
(1)The property in question is in the district of Bahraich which
is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the
Allahabad High Court. Hence, the writ petition could not have
been validly filed or entertained in the Allahabad Bench of the
High Court in view of the decision of this court in Nasiruddin
                                                                         F
vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal AIR 1976 SC 331.

(2)The writ petition was not maintainable because ordinarily no
writ petition lies against a private body.

{-3).l;!y the ex-pa rte order dated 11.6.2010 the writ petition has      G
 been-practiciillY allowed since by that ex-parte order the
respondents 2;3,-&4-__(U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, District
Magistrate, Bahraich and~mmittee of Management, Waqf
No. 19, Dargah Sharif, Bahraich)_ have been directed to allot
the land in the Mela of the aforesaid Waqf at plot Nos. 1760 to          H
    1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A 1770 and 1826 to 1884 to the petitioner for the purpose of
  running circus, Jhoola, Merry-go-round etc., and possession of
  the allocated land was directed to be handed over within three
  days. Subsequently, on 18.6.2010, the same single Judge has
  passed an order directing the district Magistrate and SP,
B Bahraich to take appropriate action for compliance of the earlier
  order.

       It is well settled that by an interim order the final relief
  should not be granted, vide UP. Junior Doctors Action
  Committee vs. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani, AIR 1992 SC 671
C (para 8), State of U.P. vs. Ram Sukhi Devi, JT 2004(8) SC
  264 (para6), etc.

  (4) The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being writ
  petition No. 4720(M/B) of 2010 before the Lucknow Bench of
D the High Court which was dismissed on 19.5.2010 with liberty
  to approach the district Magistrate by making a representation.
  The petitioner made a representation which was decided by
  the District Magistrate on 21.5.2010 with the direction to the
  Committee of Management of the Waqf to reconsider the
E petitioner's claim for allotment of land. The petitioner then
  applied to the Committee of the Management for grant of a
   lease and simultaneously filed another writ petition being writ
   petition No. 5245(M/B) of 2010 before the Lucknow Bench
   challenging the order of the District Magistrate. This writ petition
F was dismissed on 28.5.2010 by the following order of the
   Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High
  Court:

         "Court No. -1

G        Case:- MISC. BENCH No. - 5245 of 2010

         Petitioner :- Raza Khan S/O Fateh Khan

         Respondent :- District Magistrate I Additional Waqf
         Commissioner, Bahraich
H
RAJA KHAN v. U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD1139


   Petitioner Counsel:- M.A. Khan                                  A

   Respondent Counsel:- C. S. C., M. Sayeed, U.K.
   Srivastava

   Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
                                                                   B
   Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.

          After hearing the argument at length, we are satisfied
   that this second writ petition for the same relief is not
   maintainable, as earlier, the writ petition filed by the        C
   petitioners for the same relief, has been dismissed as
   withdrawn vide order dated 19.5.2010.

         Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava appearing for the
   Committee says that in pursuance of the directives issued
   by the District Magistrate in his order dated 21.05.2010,       D
   a fresh decision has already been taken and it has been
   sent to the petitioner through registered post.

         Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate,
   appearing for the petitioner says that no such decision has
                                                                   E
   yet been communicated.

        Copy of the said decision has been handed over to
   Sri Mohd. Arif Khan.

          When this Court has refused to entertain the writ        F
   petition filed earlier for the same relief and though liberty
   to the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate or any
   other forum, as may be provided under law being even, it
   does not mean that the second writ petition seeking same
   relief will be maintainable after the orders passed by the      G
   authority concerned, but it would be open to the parties to
   seek their remedy, elsewhere, as may be provided under
   law.

         The dispute like this nature, since cannot be
                                                                   H
    1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) $.C.R.


A       adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, we did not entertain the
        earlier petition and for the same reason, the present
        petition is also not maintainable.
                                                           •
               Mohd. Arif Khan, lastly submitted that a direction be
        issued to the Chairman for deciding the application moved
B       under Section 70 of the Act. In response, Sri Umesh Kumar
        Srivastava, argued that Section 70 is not attracted in the
        matter, nor such an application is entertainable.

              We do not intend to enter into this controversy, and
c       leave it open to the petitioner, to pursue his application with
        the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.

        Order Date: 28.5.2010"

       12. The petitioner then filed a Civil Suit being Suit No. 54/
D 70/10 of 2010 titled 'Raza Khan vs. Managing Committee,
  Waqf No. 19, Waqf Dargah etc. before the Civil Judge (Senior
  Division), Hamirpur. It may be mentioned that Hamirpur lies
  within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad Bench of the
  High Court and not the Lucknow bench, whereas the property
E in question is situate at Bahraich which is under the jurisdiction
  of the Lucknow Bench.

         13. On the suit being presented, the Munsarim made a
   report.that the suit was not cognizable at Hamirpur for lack of
F territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner took time to file a reply/
  ·objection against the said report. Instead of filing a reply, he
   filed a writ petition in the Allahabad bench of the High Court
   being writ petition No. 34595 of 2010 on which the orders
   dated 11.6.201 O and 18.6.2010 have been passed.

G        14. In our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court
    has rightly set aside the interim orders of the Single Judge
    dated 11.6.2010 and 18.6.2010 as these interim orders were
    clearly passed on extraneous considerations.

H       15. The faith of the common man in the country is shaken
 RAJA KHAN v. U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD1141


 to the core by such shocking and outrageous orders such as          A
 the kind which have been passed by the Single Judge.

       16. We are sorry to say but a lot of complaints are coming
  against certain Judges of the Allahabad High Court relating to
  their integrity. Some Judges have their kith and kin practising    B
  in the same Court, and within a few years of starting practice
  the sons or relations of the Judge become multi-millionaires,
  have huge bank balances, luxurious cars, huge houses and are
  enjoying a luxurious life. This is a far cry from the days when
· the sons and other relatives of Judges could derive no benefit     C
  from their relationship and had to struggle at the. bar like any
  other lawyer.

       17. We do not mean to say that all lawyers who have close
 relations as Judges of the High Court are misusing that
 relationship. Some are scrupulously taking care that no one         D
 should lift a finger on this account. However, others are
 shamelessly taking advantage of this relationship.

     18. There are other serious complaints also against some
 Judges of the High Court.                             ·
                                                                     E
      19. The Allahabad High Court really needs some house
 cleaning (both Allahabad and Lucknow Bench), and we request
 Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court to do the needful,
 even if he has to take some strong measures, including
 recommending transfers of the incorrigibles.                        F

     20. We entirely agree with the view taken by the Learned .
Division Bench in the impugned judgment. In view of the
foregoing, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly
dismissed.                                                        G
    21. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar
Generals/Registrars of all High Courts for being placed before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the respective High Courts.

R.P.                                            SLP dismissed.       H