IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.18121 of 2014 BETWEEN The Managing Committee of Jamia Masid, Kothagudem, Khamam District.
AND ... PETITIONER T h e A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. by Special Officer, Hyderabad and another.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR. MIRZA SAIFULLA BAIG The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner committee was the past managing committee appointed by the Wakf Board with respect to the wakf institution viz. Jamia Masid, Kothagudem. The petitioner committee was appointed under the proceedings of the Board dated 05.08.2011 for a period of two years, which expired long back. It appears that the petitioner committee made an application for renewal of their term in view of the substantial work done by it towards taking up construction of shopping complex and investing huge amount by borrowings. The Board, however, considered the report of Inspector Auditor Wakfs and appointed a new committee under proceedings dated 16.06.2014 for a period of six months or till a new Managing Committee is constituted after conducting elections under Section 18 of the Wakf Act (for short ‘the Act’), whichever is earlier.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner committee submits that the aforesaid proceedings appointing new managing committee is questioned by the petitioner committee on the ground that without considering its request for renewal, a new committee could not have been appointed. Reliance is placed upon Regulation 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Wakfs Managing Committee (Constitution, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009 framed under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner committee also questions the impugned proceedings on the ground that the appointment of managing committee has to be for a period of one year and not less than one year and not more than three years in terms of Regulation 11 of the Regulations, referred to above. Learned counsel also submits that the Board ought to have taken into consideration the substantial work done by the petitioner committee and ought to have favourably considered the application for renewal.
3. Firstly, in my view, petitioner committee, being the previous managing committee, is not empowered to question the decision of the Board in appointing new managing committee on any of the aforesaid grounds, as Regulation 22 dealing with the renewal is applicable only with respect to a committee elected by the members of the Wakf and recognized/approved by the Board. Admittedly, the petitioner committee was not the elected committee but was a committee appointed by the Board. Even otherwise also, Regulation 22 of the Regulations provides that the Board may consider renewal and therefore, seeking renewal is not automatic but subject to discretion of the Board. Secondly, to the extent of violation of Regulation 11 of the Regulations concerned, the impugned proceedings appointing new managing committee for a period of six months instead of one year, in my view, would not invalidate the order of appointment of the committee itself inasmuch as the Board intends to conduct elections for the purpose of constituting managing committee and as an interim measure, has appointed the new managing committee for a period of six months or till a managing committee is constituted after conducting elections, whichever is earlier. Thirdly, the renewal application of the petitioner committee cannot be directed to be considered in view of appointment of new committee as early as on 16.06.2014.
4. Petitioner committee is also not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party also, as the new committee, which is appointed under the impugned proceedings, is not impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition even otherwise suffers from a fatal defect of non-joinder.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 1, 2014 DSK