IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1076 of 2009 1. BIHAR STATE SHIA WAKF BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY- PRESENT ADMINISTRATOR, ABEDIN HOUSE, FRASER ROAD, PATNA, NOW HAJ BHAWAN, 2ND FLOOR, 34, ALI IMAM PATH, PATNA-1 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BIHAR STATE SHIA WAKF BOARD ABEDIN HOUSE, FRASER ROAD, PATNA, NOW HAJ BHAWAN, 34, ALI IMAM PATH, PATNA-1 ....................................…….. APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE, PATNA 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CITY),. PATNA 3. THE SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, PATNA 4. THE CIRCILE OFFICER, SADAR, PATNA 5. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, KOTWALI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT- PATNA 6. M/S NAMIRA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD. HAVINGS ITS OFFICES AT 305, SUKRITI APARTMENT, S.P. VERMA ROAD, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA THROUGH DIRECTOR SERAJ ANWAR. 7. SERAJ ANWAR S/O LATE SIRAJUDDIN AHMAD, R/O B-186, POLICE COLONY, ANISABAD, POLICE STATION GARDANIBAGH, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA 8. FAIJ MURTAZA ALI, MUTAWALLI, FAZAL IMAM PUBLIC CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS TRUST, FRASER ROAD, P.S.-KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA 9. NEK MOHAMMAD S/O LATE ALI JAN, R/O GARH NOUKHA, P.S. NOUKHA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS 10. MRS. SHAHIDA HASAN W/O AZFAR HASAN, R/O RAMNA BAGH, NAYA TOLA, P.S.- PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT- PATNA ………………..RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the appellants :- Mr. Shabir Ahmad, Advocate For respondent Nos. 6 &7 :- Mr.Sanjay Singh, Mr. Uma Kant Prasad, Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Advocates For the respondent No. 8 :- Mr. NareshDikshit, Kunal Tiwary, Advocates For the State :- Mr. S. Prasad, AC to AAG IV -------------- 2 03/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. We have been taken through the judgment of the writ court dated 5.8.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15617 of 2007, whereby after considering the entire facts and circumstances in an exhaustive manner the writ court has given certain reliefs to 2 the writ petitioners who have in their favour a development agreement executed by Mutawalli of a Shia Wakf Board created for religious and charitable purposes. Before deciding to enter into the development agreement, admittedly the Mutawalli sought permission of the appellant Wakf Board. According to the Board, the terms and conditions of the development agreement were required to be examined and settled by the Wakf Board but instead of getting that done the Mutawalli and the developer proceeded with construction and when same was opposed, the writ petition was preferred. It has been submitted that permission to enter into development agreement for making certain constructions was given by the Wakf Board about a decade earlier on the understanding that the income from such construction would enable the Wakf to have the resources for realizing the purpose of the Wakf Board and establish the infrastructure for religious and charitable purposes. Now, the stand of the appellant Wakf Board is that the development agreement is not necessary to promote the realization of purpose for which the Wakf was created and the terms of the development agreement are detrimental to such objects. The first objection does not lie in the mouth of the appellant Wakf Board which in principle allowed the Mutawalli 3 to enter into a development agreement. So far as the second objection is concerned, on a careful reading of the exhaustive judgment and order of the writ court it is found that in the last but one page the writ court has given careful directions which allows the appellant Wakf Board to consider the fresh draft of an agreement prepared pursuant to court’s direction dated 10.9.2008 and to approve the same, after making such changes which are reasonable and necessary in the interest of the Wakf, within a period of three months from the date of the judgment. In deference to the learned counsel for the appellants it is mentioned that a number of arguments and contentions were raised before us but those could not persuade us to take a different view or to admit the appeal. After considering the entire facts and circumstances and the judgment under appeal, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin