RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) Since the subject matter of these two writ petitions is appointment of Mutwalli of Waqf No. 161, Bareilly (Waqf Barai Umoor-e-Khair), learned counsel appearing for the parties have consented that both these writ petitions may be heard and decided together. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to decide these writ petitions by the order which follows:-
(2.) Under challenge in Writ Petition No. 3778(MB) of 1996 is an order dated 05.06.1996 said to have been purportedly passed by the Controller of U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board whereby the operation of the order dated 04.04.1996 was stayed. It is noticeable that by means of order dated 04.04.1996, the petitioner-Sahibzada Moinuddin Siddiqui was appointed as Mutwalli to manage the affairs of the Waqf in question. This court while entertaining the writ petition no. 3778(MB) of 1996, passed an order on 03.01.1997, whereby the order impugned in the said writ petition dated 05.06.1996 was stayed and accordingly in compliance of the said order dated 03.01.1997, passed by this Court, no further proceedings were held by the Board or any other officer of the Board.
(3.) In Writ Petition No. 9093(MB) of 2016, which too has been filed by the petitioner-Sahimzada Moinuddin Siddiqui, under challenge is the decision dated 08.03.2016 said to have been taken by the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board whereby Sri Shahibzada Khurshid Husain (respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 9093(MB) of 2016) has been appointed as Mutwalli with the finding that it would not be appropriate to appoint the petitioner-Sahibzada Moinuddin Siddiqui as Mutwalli. At this juncture, we may also notice that Waqf Board while taking the decision dated 08.03.2016 has given a finding that there was a vacancy in the office of Mutwalli of the Waqf in question.;