MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) DURING the course of hearing the writ appeal, on the basis of submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties, we primarily believed that the writ petition could also be decided along with the writ appeal, so that the issue involved in the writ petition could be set at naught by this Court. Accordingly, we summoned the writ petition to be taken up at 2-15 PM along with the writ appeal and decide the Writ appeal along with the Writ Petition by the following order.

( 2 ) THE Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the learned single Judge in the above writ petition in WVMP No. 905 of 2002 in WPMP no. 4030 of 2002 dated 20-6-2002.

( 3 ) THE writ petition is filed by the appellant seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No. JC/rr/ 2000/b2, dated 12-9-2001 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, improper, unjust and without jurisdiction and pass such other relief as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. It is the case of the petitioner that Durgah Koh-e-moula AH, malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy district is a religious Wakf. Some other agricultural lands situated at Malkajgiri and Mallapur area are attached to the said institution. The institution and the properties attached to it have been notified in the A. P. Gazette as required under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The petitioner claims to be functioning as mutawalli of the said Durgah. Prior to it, his late father Sri Gulam Ali Khan was the muthawalli, who died on 22-5-1988. Thereafter, he was appointed as Mutawalli by the A. P. State Wakf Board as per the rules and Regulations.

( 4 ) IT is stated by the petitioner that the 1st respondent issued impugned proceedings in jf/2000/b2, dated 12-9-2001, appointing the 2nd respondent as Enquiry Officer under section 71 of the Act, to enquire into certain allegations against the petitioner and the erstwhile A. P. State Waif Board and other officials. One Sri Navazuddin, Secretary of the A. P. Minorities Organisation, hyderabad seems to have levelled allegations of corruption, attributing to the erstwhile A. P. State Wakf Board and the official in his appointment as Mutawalli.

( 5 ) SRI P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent has no authority to appoint an Enquiry Officer against the petitioner, as during that relevant period, there was no wakf Board and as such in the absence of any authority either from the Government or from other source, delegating powers to the Respondent, for ordering enquiry, the 1st respondent could not have instituted enquiry under Section 71 of the Act by appointing the 2nd respondent as Enquiry officer. It is in this background, the writ petition was filed and initially, stay of initiation of enquiry was obtained and later on a petition being filed by the contesting respondent, the learned single Judge vacated the said interim order by an order dated 20-6-2002 against which the present writ appeal is filed.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, the learned counsel representing the Wakf Board as well as the contesting respondent in the writ petition submitted that as provided under Section 99 of the Act, the 1st respondent is competent to appoint an Enquiry Officer and that the procedure followed by the 1st respondent could not be termed as without authority, that the learned single Judge has rightly vacated the interim orders and therefore, it is submitted that no interference is called for in this writ appeal.

( 7 ) THE respondents take recourse to the provisions under Section 99 of the Act to justify the action of the 1st respondent. In order to appreciate the contention, we trace the provisions appearing under Section 99 of the Act, which reads as follows:-- "section 99. Power to supersede Board: (1) If the State Government is of opinion that the Board is unable to perform or has persistently made default in the performance of, the duty i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document