ORDER : 1. Heard Sri A.M. Qureshi, learned senior counsel representing Sri Mohd Naseeruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Prasad, learned Government Pleader for Minority Welfare, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O.Rt. No. 132, Minorities Welfare (Estt-II) Department, dated 14.12.2020, keeping respondent No. 4 in Full Additional Charge to the post of Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 2-Waqf Board, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the same and to appoint Full Time Chief Executive Officer to respondent No. 2-Waqf Board, pursuant to the resolution, dated 20.10.2022, as contemplated under Section 23 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act 1995’) read with Rule 43 of the Waqf Rules 2000. 3. This matter earlier came up on 01.11.2022 and the same was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter. Though respondent No. 4 is being appointed and continued as Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 2-Waqf Board on Full Additional Charge is impugned in the Writ Petition, during the course of arguments, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if appropriate orders are passed directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to fill up the post of Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 2-Waqf Board within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, as the same is mandatory obligation on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to see that a regular Chief Executive Officer is appointed for respondent No. 2-Waqf Board. 4. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel that respondent No. 2-Waqf Board has already passed a resolution, dated 20.10.2022, resolving to send a request to the Principal Secretary to Government, Minority Welfare to send a panel and the said resolution reads as follows: “It is further resolved to send a request to the Principal Secretary to Government, Minority Welfare Department to send a panel of two government officers i.e., Deputy Secretary rank and above or equivalent U/Sec 23 of Waqf Act of 1995 for appointment of full time C.E.O. meanwhile Sri Khaja Moinuddin, D.S.P. Vigilance Officer, T.S. Waqf Board has been appointed I/c C.E.O. with immediate effect till further order. Further, it has also been resolved to adjourn the agenda and adjourn meeting shall be called on 29.10.2022.” 5. By placing reliance on the said resolution, learned senior counsel contended that respondent No. 1 is under obligation to send a panel of officers available to be appointed as Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 2-Waqf Board, and out of them, respondent No. 2-Wqaf Board would choose two names, as required under Section 23 of the Act 1995, but, respondent No. 1 failed to send any list of officers available for being appointed as Chief Executive Officer and for that reason the appointment of Chief Executive Officer could not take place and only temporary arrangement is being continued since long time. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Minority Welfare, on instructions, submitted that in terms of Section 23 of the Act 1995, it is for respondent No. 2-Waqf Board to suggest a panel of two names, who shall not be below the rank of Deputy Secretary to State Government to enable respondent No. 1 to appoint one among them as Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 2-Waqf Board 7. Having carefully considered the submissions made on either side and Section 23 of the Act 1995, this Court is of the considered view that in terms of Section 23 of the Act 1995, it is for respondent No. 2-Waqf Board to suggest a panel of two names to respondent No. 1 for being appointed as Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 2-Waqf Board and it is only on submission of such suggestion by respondent No. 2-Waqf Board, respondent No. 1 is supposed to act upon and appoint the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 2-Board. In the absence of any such suggestion being forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 would not be in a position to appoint a Chief Executive Officer of its choice. 8. In the absence of any such suggestion being forwarded to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 would not be in a position to appoint a Chief Executive Officer of its choice. 8. In the light of clear and unambiguous language of Section 23 of the Act 1995, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the contention of learned senior counsel that respondent No. 1 is required to send a panel of officers available for being appointed as Chief Executive Officer to respondent No. 2-Board to enable respondent No. 2 to choose two names among such panel is totally misconceived and such an interpretation of Section 23 of the Act runs contrary to the very intent and meaning of Section 23 of the Act. 9. Section 23 of the Act, 1995 mandates that there shall be a full time Chief Executive Officer for respondent No. 2-Waqf Board, who shall be appointed by the State Government by a notification in the official Gazette. Thus, the obligation that is cast on respondent No. 1 to appoint a full time Chief Executive officer to the respondent No. 2-Waqf Board is a mandatory duty cast upon respondent No. 1/State and continuing respondent No. 4 in the post of Chief Executive Officer by making temporary arrangements or by placing the same officer as full additional charge of the said post is contrary to Section 23 of the Act 1995. Thus, the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not filling up the post of Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 2-Waqf Board and continuing to make temporary arrangement is contrary to Section 23 of the Act 1995. 10. In the circumstances and for the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case where a writ of mandamus can be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to discharge their statutory obligation under Section 23 of the Act. 11. However, this Court is not inclined to disturb the temporary arrangements that are already made by appointing respondent No. 4 as full additional charge of the post of Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 2-Waqf Board as the same is only temporary arrangement pending appointment of full time Chief Executive Officer. 12. 11. However, this Court is not inclined to disturb the temporary arrangements that are already made by appointing respondent No. 4 as full additional charge of the post of Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 2-Waqf Board as the same is only temporary arrangement pending appointment of full time Chief Executive Officer. 12. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed by directing respondent No. 2-Waqf Board to forthwith take steps for suggesting a panel of two names in terms of Section 23 of the Act 1995 to respondent No. 1, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such suggestion being made by respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 shall pass appropriate orders thereon by duly appointing an eligible person as Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 2-Board in terms of Section 23 of the Act 1995, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of suggestions from respondent No. 2. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.