Hazrat Chanadashash Wali Rehmatullah Allehe Urs Samajik Sanstha Throughpresident Farukh Khan vs Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board And Others

Vijay Kumar Shukla , J

The present intra Court appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the interlocutory order dated 9.1.2026 passed in W.P.No.923/2026 (Annexure A/7) by which the learned Single Judge declined the prayer for interim relief to conduct the URS by the petitioner/appellant instead of the committee appointed by the respondent No.1 headed by respondent No.3 on the ground that the URS was to commence from 13.1.2026 just after a period of 3 days and all the arrangements must have already been made. It is further observed that the application of the petitioner/appellant for performing URS has not even been processed by the Sub Divisional Officer. He further observed that if at the present stage the arrangement already made is disturbed there is every possibility of the disruption of the URS itself, which would not be feasible.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner/appellant has vehemently argued that the order of the learned Single Judge has been passed without considering the yardsticks of passing an interim order in the form of injunction. He argued that prima facie case and balance of convenience and factor of irreparable loss were in his favour.

It is submitted that the petitioner/appellant has been conducting this URS since 2017-18. The learned Single Judge has declined the prayer on the assumption that the preparations must have been made by the respondent No.3/committee. He argued that the appointment of the committee by the respondent No.1 was per se illegal and without competence as the property in question is not included in the list of Auqaf in the list of the Auqaf property under Section 37 of the Waqf Act.

Learned counsel for the respondents has primarily objection that the writ appeal is not maintainable, as the same has been filed against the interlocutory order.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has argued that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in the nature of final order and, therefore, the writ appeal is maintainable. We do not find any merit in the said contention.

Law in regard the maintainability of the writ appeal against the interlocutory order has been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Jain & Ors. V/s. State of M.P. & Ors. , 2007 Vol. 3 MPLJ 565 in which the Court has considered the proviso to Section 2(1) of Adhiniyam, 2005 and held that the same does not create an absolute bar to prefer an appeal and appeal can be preferred against an order regard being had to the nature, tenure, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, we hold that though there is no absolute bar for maintaining an appeal against an interlocutory order, but in the present case, the main relief which was sought by the petitioner/appellant in para 7 was quashment of the impugned order whereby the committee has been constituted. A direction was further prayed to permit the petitioner/appellant to conduct / organize the URS dated 13.1.2026 and 16.1.2026 in a customary manner. A prayer was further made to restrain the respondent No.1 and its committee members including respondent No.3 from conducting the URS scheduled from 13.1.2026 to 16.1.2026.

As an interim prayer it was prayed that the petitioner/appellant be permitted to conduct the URS at the subject Dargah. Thus declining the interim prayer of the petitioner to conduct the URS is not the final relief claimed in the petition. It is not in dispute by the parties that the URS is conducted once in a year and, therefore, if the petition of the petitioner is allowed, the petitioner will get an opportunity to conduct the URS in future.

The learned Single Judge has further rightly considered the fact that the URS was to commence just after 3 days and now today the URS has already commenced as informed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Without adverting to the rival contentions raised by the parties on merits of the case, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.