IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 18627 of 2014 BETWEEN Mir Hyder Ali Al-Moosavi.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Minority Welfare Department at the Telangana State Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SAROSH BASTAWALA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. With regard to the wakf institution, in question, respondent No.5 herein is admittedly the Mutawallia. By proceedings of the Board, dated 09.05.2014, respondent No.5 was kept under suspension pending enquiry. Said order was questioned before this court in W.P.No.15125 of 2014, wherein it was found during hearing that the wakf institution is completely in a dilapidated stage and steps are taken by the Mutawallia as well as the Board to have it reconstructed by entrusting the work to respondent No.4. Said work, however, appears to have been delayed on account of the persons in occupation not vacating the premises for the purpose of reconstruction. It was also pointed out during the hearing that there is practically no income to the institution and, as such, the major priority of renovation and reconstruction was redressed by the Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer by order, dated 13.06.2014, impugned herein, as well as by a memo, dated 18.06.2014, revoked the suspension of the Mutawallia subject to the conditions mentioned in the order and issued certain directions to respondent No.5 with regard to renovation of the work and restoration of the wakf institution. Aforesaid order was questioned in W.P.No.18398 of 2014 by another person, but the same was later withdrawn. Present writ petitioner claims that he is appointed as Alambardaar and has locus and interest in the institution.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the order of revocation of suspension of the Mutawallia, which is impugned herein, amounts to reviewing the order of suspension and, as such, he is justiciable. He also submits that the order of suspension also puts an end to the enquiry proposed to be conducted earlier and reinstates respondent No.5 in the position of Mutawallia with the responsibility to aid and assist reconstruction. Learned counsel also incidentally mentions that the Alams of the wakf institution are now required to be shifted and are reportedly shifted to the private premises and thereby petitioner, as Alambardaar, is prejudiced.
4. While the main relief in the writ petition is against the order of revocation of suspension of respondent No.5, in my view, the functioning of the Mutawallia is always subject to supervision of the Board and it is the Board, on its satisfaction, takes required action against the Mutawallia. In the present case, the Board has considered all the circumstances and has reached a subjective satisfaction that the reconstruction and development of the wakf institution is to be attended with a priority and to ensure an atmosphere of amity and bonhomie and in order to facilitate early reconstruction of the holy shrine, the enquiry proposed earlier was dropped and further proceedings are closed and the Mutawallia was reinstated subject to certain conditions.
5. Since the Board has apparently expressed its satisfaction on reconsideration of the earlier order, I am unable to see how the petitioner could be aggrieved by the said action of the Board. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, with respect to petitioner’s complaint that he has been excluded from discharging his duties as Alambardaars is concerned, petitioner is free to approach the Board with a specific request in that regard and if such a request is made, the Board shall look into the said request and take appropriate action. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 11, 2014 LMV