Withdrawal of the impugned order rendered the writ petition infructuous.

The petitioners challenged an order dated 03.09.2026 appointing an administrator to manage respondent No. 5 Trust.

They contended that the Chief Executive Officer of the Chhattisgarh State Wakf Board had acted without authority because the Board had not passed a resolution authorising the appointment.

Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 stated that the impugned order had been withdrawn, and submitted that the petition had become infructuous.

Whether the petitioners’ challenge to the order dated 03.09.2026 required further consideration after respondents Nos. 2 and 3 stated that the order had been withdrawn.

Whether the Chief Executive Officer had authority to appoint an administrator without a decision of the Waqf Board. This contention was raised by the petitioners but was not determined on its merits.

The Court did not apply or interpret any statutory provision or precedent in resolving the petition.

The petitioners invoked Sections 14 and 32 of the Waqf Act, 1995, arguing that the Board’s powers could not be exercised independently by its Chief Executive Officer or Chairperson; these were submissions, not findings of the Court.

The Court disposed of the matter on the basis that the impugned order had been withdrawn and no further relief required consideration.

The Court relied on respondents Nos. 2 and 3’s statement that the impugned order had been withdrawn. On that basis, it found that nothing further survived for consideration and that the relief sought no longer required adjudication.

It therefore did not decide whether the Chief Executive Officer had acted without jurisdiction or determine the petitioners’ arguments under the Waqf Act.

The interim order dated 17.09.2026 consequently came to an end.