Common Order:

There is a Wakf, by name Fathekhanpet Kalan Mosque, in Fathekhanpet Village, Nellore District. One Sri Mohammed Ali Saheb was the Muthawalli of the said Wakf. He died on 23.06.1967. Ever since then, the administration of the Wakf was being entrusted to different persons, through specific orders, by the A.P.Wakf Board. His son, by name Md. Saleem Ur. Rahman, filed an application on 05.10.2004 with a request to appoint him as Muthawalli, as successor of his father. Through proceedings, dated 22.05.2005, the A.P.Wakf Board appointed him as Muthawalli. Shortly thereafter, the Wakf Board issued proceedings, dated 18.12.2005 appointing a Managing Committee to the Wakf. W.P.No.3239 of 2007 is filed by Md. Saleem Ur. Rahman, challenging the proceedings, dated 18.12.2005. The Managing Committee, in turn, filed W.P.No.4571 of 2007 assailing the order, dated 22.05.2005.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.3239 of 2007 filed by Md. Saleem Ur. Rahman, in which A.P.Wakf Board is impleaded as respondent No.1, the Special Officer of the Wakf Board as second respondent, its Chief Executive Officer as respondent No.3 and the Managing Committee as respondent No.6.

The petitioner contends that the Office of Muthawalli for the Wakf is hereditary, in nature, and on account of his employment in Government Service, when his father died, he did not apply for succession and appointment immediately. He contends that his application made in the year 2004 was examined by the second respondent and the resultant orders were issued by the third respondent and that there is absolutely no basis for appointing a Managing Committee, that too, at the instance of a local M.L.A.

No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Wakf Board.

Apart from filing a separate writ petition, the 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.3239 of 2007. It is urged that ever since the original Muthawalli died in the year 1967, the Wakf is under the administration of the Committee, and the appointment of the petitioner as Muthawalli, without notice to the Committee is unsustainable in law. Several other grounds are also urged, touching upon the state of affairs that are existing in the Wakf.

Sri K. Subrahmanya Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner was recognized as the successor to the original Muthawalli and appointed, as such, there is absolutely no basis for respondents 1 to 3 in appointing the 6th respondent-Committee. He also submits that the administration of a Wakf through Muthwalli is a rule and appointment of Committee is an exception, where no Muthawall is appointed. He places reliance upon certain decided cases.

Learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board submits that though the petitioner was appointed as Muthawalli, later it emerged that by the time he was appointed, the Wakf was under the administration of a Committee and on verification of the matter, in detail, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent-Committee. He further submits that the petitioner and the 6th respondent can work out their remedies before the Wakf Tribunal.

Sri Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi, learned counsel for the 6th respondent-Committee submits that though the Wakf was under the administration of a Muthawalli till 1967, thereafter, its administration was entrusted to a Committee and the appointment of the petitioner as Muthawalli, without giving an opportunity to the Committee is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. He contends that the petitioner had incurred disqualification to act as Muthawalli, on account of the lapses on his part and it is not at all safe to give the administration of the Wakf to him.

The father of the petitioner, admittedly, was the Muthawalli till his death i.e. on 23.06.1967. For one reason or the other, the petitioner did not claim succession. The record discloses that t