IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.19772 of 2014 BETWEEN The Kankukur Town Eadgah Mosjid Committee, Prakasam District.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S.A. RAZACK Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE MR. SHAFAT AHMAD KHAN MR. SYED ARIF BASHA MR. K. V. MALLIKARJUNA PANI The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner committee questions the impugned proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer dated 25.12.2012 whereby the District Revenue Officer constituted a committed for managing the Edgah Mosque situated at Pamur Road, Kandukur Town and the said committee consists of 26 members by drawing two members from each of the 13 mosques.
2. The aforesaid proceedings is questioned, primarily, on the ground that neither the Revenue Divisional Officer nor the District Revenue Officer has any jurisdiction or power to appoint a committee.
3. Heard Mr. S.A. Razack, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Syed Arif Basha and Mr. K.V. Mallikarjuna Pani, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and Mr. Shafat Ahmad Khan, learned counsel representing the Wakf Board.
4. The issue involved is already adjudicated by this Court in WP.No.19778 of 2014 dated 13.08.2014 where this Court has already held that under the provisions of the Wakf Act, none of the respondents except the Wakf Board has powers to appoint any managing committee, as has been done under the impugned proceedings herein. Under Section 18 of the Wakf Act, it is for the Wakf Board to make appropriate arrangement for administration of Wakf institution by appointing a committee or otherwise. The revenue authorities, therefore, have no jurisdiction to appoint any such committee even in consultation with the Inspector Auditor Wakf.
5. The impugned proceedings are, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction and are unsustainable and the same was already suspended when the writ petition was initially heard on 16.07.2014 and notice before admission was ordered. In view of the issue having been already decided, accordingly, in WP.No.19778 of 2014, referred to above, the impugned proceedings is quashed.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, this will not preclude the Wakf Board from exercising its jurisdiction with regard to the management of the Wakf Institution, in accordance with law.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 2, 2014 Note: Office to attach a copy of order in WP.No.19778 of 2014 to this order.
(B/o) DSK