JUDGMENT SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has, inter alia, challenged a development agreement, dated September, 29, 2010 by and between the Board of Wakf, West Bengal and the private respondents, i.e., respondents nos. 10, 11 and 12. The petitioner has also challenged the building plan sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in respect of the wakf estate in the name of Arun Gomes, i.e., the respondent no. 10 herein. 2. The petitioner claims that he has been actively participating in the cause of protection and preservation of the wakf properties and especially the Sajeda Banu @ Majeda Banu Wakf Estate at 43 Imdad Ali Lane, Kolkata 700016 (hereinafter referred to as “the said wakf”). He is a member of the committee selected by the local people and had applied before the Board of Wakf (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) for their appointment as Committee of Mutawallis. The premises referred to above has been recorded as a wakf estate for more than 75 years. In the year 2000 three persons were re-appointed as Joint Mutawallis in respect of the said wakf for a period of five years. 3. The petitioner alleged that one Arun Gomes, i.e., respondent no. 10 herein, in collusion with respondents nos. 11 and 12 aided and abetted by the respondent no. 3 and members of the Board had conspired to usurp and misappropriate the wakf property of the said wakf estate. The petitioner mentions some methods by which this conspiracy was worked out. According to him the wakf estate was recorded in the name of a fictitious person viz., Syed Ali Mirza who had executed a lease deed in the year 2002 in favour of the respondent no. 10 granting a lease for a period of 81 years. By the said deed of lease the respondent no. 10 was granted the right of demolition, construction and erection and sale of the said premises. The respondent no. 10 mutated his name as the lessee in respect of the said premises and on May 4, 2004 he entered into a development agreement with the respondent no. 11 for developing the said wakf estate. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation also had sanctioned a building plan in the name of the respondent no. 10. Demolition work had started at the wakf property. 11 for developing the said wakf estate. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation also had sanctioned a building plan in the name of the respondent no. 10. Demolition work had started at the wakf property. The Board assumed the management of the property but did not take any step either against the said Syed Ali Mirza or the respondents nos. 10, 11 and 12. On September 28, 2010 the Board entered into an agreement with the respondents nos. 10, 11 and 12 for causing development of the said premises. 4. From these series of events the petitioner has concluded that the Board was hand in gloves with the private respondents and they had dismissed the Mutawalli Committee only to assuage the public outcry as an eyewash. The petitioner has mentioned certain facts which, he says, will make the complicity of the Board and its members in aiding and abetting the misappropriation of the wakf property clear. From these facts the petitioner has also drawn one more conclusion that the Board has a nexus with the private respondents for their mutual benefits. The local people are also said to have addressed a letter in July, 2010 to the respondent no. 3 requesting the Board to refrain from indulging in any unauthorized and unlawful activity. The work of the construction had started in April, 2011 and in a meeting held with the respondents nos. 11 and 12 for the first time the agreement dated September, 2010 for the development of the wakf property was revealed. By this the Board authorized the private respondents to develop the wakf property and to reap the benefits therefrom. The petitioner has also criticised the terms and conditions of the development agreement as demonstrating a mala fide intention and ulterior motive on the part of the Board. A notice by the petitioner produced no result. The Board has assumed the direct management of the estate in August, 2005. In terms of Section 65 of the Wakfs Act 1995 it cannot keep a wakf property under its direct management beyond the period of five years and the development agreement was executed by the Board when it had no statutory authority under the law. 5. The respondents nos. 2 and 3 have contested this application by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. In terms of Section 65 of the Wakfs Act 1995 it cannot keep a wakf property under its direct management beyond the period of five years and the development agreement was executed by the Board when it had no statutory authority under the law. 5. The respondents nos. 2 and 3 have contested this application by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. The specific stand taken by them is that the petitioner had applied before the Board for his appointment as a Mutawalli along with others. This wakf estate was brought under the direct management for five years after removing the then Mutawallis and by a resolution dated June 1, 2005 of the Board the lease agreement between the respondent no. 10 and Syed Ali Mirza was cancelled as violative of Section 56 of the Wakfs Act and the said lease was declared void. Subsequently, a proposal for the development of the wakf property was placed before the Development Sub-Committee and the Board of Members considered the said proposal. The matter of completion of the construction work of the building at the said premises was also considered by the Board in its meeting held on November 26, 2009 and December 23, 2009. On December 23, 2009 the Board had authorized its Chief Executive Officer to finalize the agreement in consultation with the Chairman of the Board. In the meantime the respondent no. 10 filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for a decree of declaration that the Board had no right over the land which belonged to the respondent no. 10 as the lessee. On June 21, 2010 the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. It has been specifically mentioned that the respondent no. 3 had entered into the agreement, dated September 28, 2010 after the approval granted by the Board in its meeting held on December 23, 2009. 6. The respondent no. 10 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. His case is that he had no knowledge that the concerned estate was a wakf property. His further case is that he had obtained a lease from one Syed Ali Mirza who executed the lease in the year 2002 which was registered. This property stood in the Corporation records as a ‘secular property’. As a bona fide lessee the respondent no. 10 had entered into an agreement with the respondent no. His further case is that he had obtained a lease from one Syed Ali Mirza who executed the lease in the year 2002 which was registered. This property stood in the Corporation records as a ‘secular property’. As a bona fide lessee the respondent no. 10 had entered into an agreement with the respondent no. 11 and another for its development and obtained a sanctioned building plan from the Corporation. On the basis of the said sanctioned plan the developer appointed by the respondent no. 10 demolished the old building and made some constructions on the ground floor according to the building plan sanctioned by the Corporation. The developers had informed the respondent no. 10 that the property was a wakf property and they terminated the agreement for development with a request to him not to insist upon them to proceed with the agreement. The respondents nos. 11 and 12 made proposals to the Board to allow them to complete the construction and in the year 2006 when the Board took a resolution to authorize the respondents nos. 11 and 12 to develop the property the respondent no. 10 decided not to oppose the same and agreed to relinquish his right in respect of the said property. According to the answering respondent the petitioner is only interested to be in the management of the wakf property as a mutawalli only to make some profit out of the estate and its properties. In support of it he has relied on the letter dated December 23, 2004 wherein the petitioner and a few others requested the Board to admit them as members of the Mutawalli Committee and the respondent no. 10 suspects that the present petition might have been filed because of the rejection of the said application. The chief contention of the respondent no. 10 was that when it was ascertained that the estate was a wakf property he wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the Board that he would not stake any claim on the basis of the deed of lease executed in his favour. The respondent no. 10 says that it appears that the petitioner had knowledge about the sanction of the building plan and has alleged that in the name of the interest of the community the petitioner himself has been trying to make profit out of the property. After the respondent no. The respondent no. 10 says that it appears that the petitioner had knowledge about the sanction of the building plan and has alleged that in the name of the interest of the community the petitioner himself has been trying to make profit out of the property. After the respondent no. 10 had withdrawn himself the Board had accepted the proposal of the respondents nos. 11 and 12 and authorized them to work in accordance with the building plan sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and they have constructed the present new building. 7. Similarly, respondents nos. 11 and 12 have been contesting the writ petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. They have challenged the maintainability of the instant application as a Public Interest Litigation as, according to them, it appears that the petitioner is personally interested in the matter. The answering respondents have denied the petitioner’s claim that he has been actively participating in the cause of protection and preservation of wakf properties and especially this particular wakf. According to them the petitioner is personally interested in getting himself in the management of the wakf as a Mutawalli. They have alleged that it has been admitted by the petitioner in his letter dated December 23, 2004 that he and a few other personas proposed before the Board of Wakf to include themselves as members of a “would be” committee under the domain and control of the Board. The said respondents presumed that the said application of the petitioner had been turned down and the present attempt to file this litigation is to react against the decision of the Board which has presumably gone against him. It has also been denied that the respondents nos. 10, 11 and 12 are in unlawful possession of the wakf estate or that they are self-styled promoters. The answering respondents maintain that the fact that the wakf was created for religious and charitable purposes does not mean that the estate cannot be developed by the Board of Wakf and the erstwhile Mutawallis were removed by the Board on the allegation of misconduct and the Board took over management of the concerned wakf estate under Section 65 of the Wakfs Act, 1995. Their further stand is that the petitioner had full knowledge about the sanction of the building plan and the proposed work of construction on the site on the basis of the plan sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. After the respondent no. 10 had completely relinquished his right the respondents nos. 11 and 12 were authorised to work and in accordance with the sanction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation these respondents have almost completed the work of construction and the remaining construction work was expected to be completed at an early date. Leaving an area in the newly constructed building for rehabilitation of the old tenants other areas have been booked for tenancy by the new tenants subject to payment of the cost of construction as fixed by the Board and necessary agreements have also been signed by and between them. The lessee of the wakf property, i.e., the respondent no. 10, had written a letter to the Board of Wakfs that he would not claim the property and relinquish his claim. The Board executed the development agreement with the respondents nos. 11 and 12 to which the respondent no. 10 was a confirming party. These respondents have asserted that the work of construction had started long back when the plan was sanctioned and the remaining part of the construction was started only after the Board’s resolution authorising the respondents nos. 11 and 12 to make the construction. The answering respondents insist that whatever construction had been done are within the sanctioned limits permitted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The answering respondents have further stated that the moment it came to their knowledge that the property belonged to the wakf estate they wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Board of Wakfs, on December 3, 2004. The respondents have also denied that the Board has fixed a low rent for the property in question compared to another building in some other locality. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The affidavit of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is, like its submission, very short and limited. It says that in the year 2004 it had sanctioned a building plan which was again revalidated in the month of February, 2011. As per its last inspection made on May 18, 2011 the work of construction was going on in accordance with its sanctioned plan. It says that in the year 2004 it had sanctioned a building plan which was again revalidated in the month of February, 2011. As per its last inspection made on May 18, 2011 the work of construction was going on in accordance with its sanctioned plan. Upon receipt of complaint the Kolkata Municipal Corporation took steps on it and found that the construction was going on as per the sanctioned building plan and as such there is no question to issue any notice directing the respondents nos. 11 and 12 to stop work. 9. In this matter the added respondents intervened to ventilate their points of view. According to them, as per the agreement the incoming tenants entered into an agreement with the respondents nos. 11 and 12 and paid money at the rate fixed by the Board for the purpose of carrying on construction. These added respondents included a few old tenants who wanted their interest and the interest of the new tenants to be protected. The new tenants have agreed to pay rent to the wakf estate. 10. From the pleadings and the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties it appears that the petition is basically against the development agreement executed by the Board of Wakf and the private respondents and is also against the sanctioned plan granted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Although the petitioner has submitted that he has no personal interest in the wakf estate or its management the fact remains that in the application made to the respondent no. 3 names of a few persons for forming a committee for the administration and management of the wakf property were mentioned as the members of the proposed committee. There the name of the petitioner appears as the Treasurer of the proposed committee. These members have consented to be the members of the proposed committee and have duly signed the application. This application was made on December 23, 2004 and it ended with the words “and oblige”. This application amongst others was signed by the petitioner also. 11. This makes the allegation of the concerned respondents apparently look justified that the petitioner perhaps after not being successful had filed this application in the name of a Public Interest Litigation. We in fact do not know the result of this application. This application amongst others was signed by the petitioner also. 11. This makes the allegation of the concerned respondents apparently look justified that the petitioner perhaps after not being successful had filed this application in the name of a Public Interest Litigation. We in fact do not know the result of this application. But the fact remains that the petitioner wanted to be on the proposed committee for managing the concerned wakf estate as a Treasurer. That really militates against the claim of the petitioner as a disinterested person. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal and other, reported in AIR 2004 SC 280 had categorically observed:- “When there is material to show that a petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out………….. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’ or ‘private interest litigation’ or ‘politics interest litigation’ or the “paise income litigation’. If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wrech vengeance as well……………. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge or enmity.” 13. The Apex Court further laid down in the said judgment that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. 14. Judged by this criterion which has been propounded in many other judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this public interest litigation is clearly liable to be thrown out. That the petitioner had some degree of interest in the management of the wakf is quite obvious. That by itself disqualifies the petition from being treated as a public interest litigation. 15. Apart from that even on merit as well we do not find any thing to interfere in the matter. That the petitioner had some degree of interest in the management of the wakf is quite obvious. That by itself disqualifies the petition from being treated as a public interest litigation. 15. Apart from that even on merit as well we do not find any thing to interfere in the matter. The collusion and conspiracy amongst the respondents inter se as alleged by the petitioner do not, however, emerge from the records and the conclusion drawn by the petitioner based on these records is largely based on his suspicion and surmises. The respondent no. 10 had made his stand very clear that he had no knowledge that the concerned property was a wakf property for it was recorded in the Corporation records as a ‘secular property’. When this was made known to him he relinquished his interest. Thereafter, the Board allowed the respondents nos. 11 and 12 to continue with the construction. The work has now been completed. There is no good denying the fact that the petitioner had knowledge of the work of construction for a long time as will be evident from his petition. Then why he did not move the High Court earlier is not very clear to us. Maybe, the fact that thereafter the application for the proposed committee of the mutawallis was filed to the Board was a factor for the delay. Whatever might be the reason, the unexplained delay coupled with his application to the Board raises reasonable doubt about the petitioner’s bona fide. 16. The allegation of the petitioner that the private respondents were trying to misappropriate the wakf property is also not borne by the records. The petitioner’s stand that the Board is hand in gloves with these respondents has also very little to be substantiated from the records. He cannot really urge that once the lease deed of January 14, 2002 was declared void and violative of Section 56 of the Wakfs Act, 1995, the Development Sub-Committee of the Board of Wakf could not take any resolution for completing the work of construction of the building at the said premises. 17. The subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition should not come within the ambit of a Public Interest Litigation. The wakf is under the management of the Board. 17. The subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition should not come within the ambit of a Public Interest Litigation. The wakf is under the management of the Board. The petitioner not having been able to demonstrate positively and unmistakably that the Board of Wakf was allowing the mismanagement of the wakf property or that it is being squandered away or misappropriated with the connivance of the Board we fail to find any element of a public interest litigation in this petition. In other words, the petitioner has failed to establish the allegation regarding misappropriation or misuse of the wakf property and there is hardly any scope to interfere in this application. 18. Whatever grievance the petitioner might have had against the Board of Wakf he may most certainly approach the Wakf Tribunal which can decide all disputes and questions relating to a wakf property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgement, dated November 23, 2010 in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal vs. Anis Fatma Begum & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 5297 of 2004] had clearly held that all matters relating to wakfs should be filed in the first instance before the Wakf Tribunal and should not be entertained by civil courts or by the High Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this ground also this petition should fail. 19. The writ petition is dismissed. 20. However, there will be no order as to costs. I agree. J.N. Patel, J.