IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 25796 of 2014 BETWEEN Mohammad Amjad Khan @ A.H.Khan AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner, who claims to be the President of the District Wakf Committee, which is in office managing the wakf institution, appears to have filed complaint bringing to the notice of the Board that there are misdeeds on the part of respondent No.4, Inspector Auditor, who is also personally impleaded as respondent No.5. Petitioner also made complaint against the President of respondent No.6. Petitioner also submits that the tenants of respondent No.6 have also filed counter complaints against him certifying that the Inspector Auditor, respondent No.4, is a good officer and nothing was alleged against him. While these complaints and counter complaints are before the Board for enquiry, it appears that the Board called for report from respondent No.4 under its memo, dated 18.06.2014, which is one of impugned proceedings herein. Since no such report was submitted, the Board issued another reminder memo, dated 16.07.2014, asking respondent No.4 to submit a report. Said reminder memo is the other impugned order in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner questions both the said impugned memos calling for report from respondent No.4 on the ground that petitioner has already made serious complaints against respondent No.4 and, as such, requiring respondent No.4 to send a report would not serve any purpose and that the Board ought to have make enquiries and obtain reports from the other officers of the Board, but not respondent No.4.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to substantiate the said ground, I am unable to appreciate the locus of the petitioner to question the internal memos issued by the Board to its Inspector Auditor. It cannot be denied that it is for the Board to make appropriate enquiries when it has received complaints and counter complaints. The sources from which the Board make the enquiries hardly concern the petitioner. Even if respondent No.4 submits a report, that would not be binding on the Board and the Board can independently take a decision either after examining the report or by obtaining requisite report from other sources. The appropriate decision of the Board on the complaints and counter complaints are entirely for the Board to enquire and the person from whom the Board chooses to make enquiries hardly concerns the petitioner. I am, therefore, unable to see any cause of action or locus of the petitioner to approach this court against the said impugned memos, as it appears, as on today, that there is no adverse order against the petitioner and, as such, there is no subsisting cause of action to entertain the writ petition. However, petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedies, in accordance with law, if and when any cause of action arises.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 3, 2014 LMV