HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 667 of 2009 (M/S) Mohd. Talib …. Petitioner .. Versus Uttarakhand Waqf Board & others … Respondents Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no. 4. 22nd October, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to command respondent nos. 1 to 3 which are Uttarahand Waqf Board through its Chief Executive Officer, Dehradun as well as Joint Magistrate/Administrator of Dargaha Pirankaliyar to cancel the allotment of contract made in favour of respondent no. 4 regarding a shop. The shop in question is for distribution of “Prasad” of Dargaha Pirankaliyar. This writ petition was earlier disposed of vide order dated 11.6.2009 whereby the petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy with the direction to the petitioner to approach the Waqf Tribunal as provided under Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Against this order the petitioner moved a 2 special appeal being no. 120 of 2009 which was allowed and the matter was remanded to this Court. The matter has now to be examined afresh. In the said order, however, it has also been said that whether there are any disputed questions of facts or the alternative remedy is being sought against the authority which come under the definition of “State” or “any other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it shall be decided by the learned Single Judge. Now the first objection raised by the respondents is regarding the maintainability of petition, as according to the respondents the main relief is being sought against the Dargaha Pirankaliyar, which is presently under the administration of a Joint Magistrate is neither a “State” nor an “Instrumentality of State” and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Indeed, though the Dargaha Pirankaliyar which is governed by the Uttarakhand Waqf Board is presently under the administrator who is the District Magistrate, and the Uttarakhand Waqf Board is also presently superseded and the powers of the Board presently vests in the State Government which are being exercised by the District Magistrate, Dehradun, yet merely because the Waqf Board or the Waqf in question i.e. Dargaha Pirankaliyar are presently being administered by the authorities in Uttarakhand they would not come within the definition of “State” or “an instrumentality of State” in as much as their essential nature remains that of a Waqf Board of a Waqf. Consequently the writ petition would not be maintainable. Apart from this, the questions raised in the present writ petition would also necessarily amount to an appraisal of gamut of facts which are presently in dispute. Since the 3 matter involves an appraisal of disputed questions of facts, which cannot be appreciated in a writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach a Civil Court. No order as to costs. CLMA Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8987/2009 stands dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22.10.2009 Avneet