Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 196 (UTT)

Mausin v. State of Uttarakhand

2021-03-26

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

body2021
JUDGMENT : Petitioner is challenging the advertisement dated 19.03.2021 issued by respondent no. 3 - Manager, Waqf Dargah Sabir Pak Piran Kaliyar Tehsil Kaliyar Roorkee, District Haridwar. By the said advertisement tenders have been invited for grant of parking rights. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an order dated 05.04.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 266 of 2019. Relevant extract of the said order reads as under:- “Unless the Waqf Board is authorized by the Piran Kaliyar Nagar Panchayat, it is not entitled to levy user charges for parking of vehicles, even if it is presumed that the subject land belongs to it. As this question has not been examined in the order under appeal, we consider it appropriate to direct that status-quo as on today, with regards allotment for parking, shall be maintained for a period of two weeks. Learned counsel for the Waqf Board requests time till 09.05.2019 to obtain instructions. Post on 09.05.2019 in the daily list.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced in Court subsequent order dated 25.04.2019 passed in the aforesaid Special Appeal, whereby the interim order passed on 05.04.2019 was extended until further order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that advertisement issued by respondent no. 3 is in teeth of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court. 5. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that this writ petition is not maintainable, as petitioner does not have locus standi. He submits that petitioner is a member of Nagar Panchayat and the writ petition should have been filed by the Nagar Panchayat itself. 6. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit, as Manager of Waqf cannot be permitted to act contrary to the order of this Court. Even otherwise also, being a member of Nagar Panchayat, petitioner has interest in the matter and he cannot be termed as total stranger. However, this Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, as the Division Bench has held that Waqf Board is not entitled to levy user charges for parking of vehicles, unless authorised by the Piran Kaliyar Nagar Panchayat. 7. In such view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. However, this Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, as the Division Bench has held that Waqf Board is not entitled to levy user charges for parking of vehicles, unless authorised by the Piran Kaliyar Nagar Panchayat. 7. In such view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. The advertisement dated 19.03.2021 is quashed in so far as it relates to contract for parking rights.