Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
Anwar-ul-Uloom Educational Association and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14504 of 2015
Decided On: 07.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Niranjan Reddy
For Respondents/Defendant:The Advocate General
Headnote:
Waqf Act, 1995 - Section 14 –Waqf board – Constitution of – Procedure to be followed – Seeking direction to the first respondent to forthwith constitute a Board in accordance with Section 14 of the Act, 1995 – Admitted case of parties is that the tenure of the erstwhile Board came to an end and a Special Officer was appointed to manage the affairs of Board and his term also came to an end in June 2014. In the meanwhile, the State was bifurcated with effect from a Special Officer was appointed for Board for a period of one year and period of one year was reduced to six months vide – Another dated was issued appointing the erstwhile Special Officer as the Director of Minorities Welfare, Hyderabad, and also as the Special Officer of Board, until further orders dated was issued fixing the tenure of the Special Officer as six months – Special Officer was reappointed after expiry of the period of six months was challenged in and this Court by order dated No. 3105 of 2015, suspended the said Government Order – Held, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the State of can appoint a competent authority only in respect of territory of State of but since the Andhra Pradesh Board is a common institution for both the States, the State of cannot appoint the competent authority It has no proprietary right, title and interest in this city and none of the assets which belong to the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, located can be claimed by the State of Andhra Pradesh except in accordance with Act, 2014. Similarly, any institutions mentioned in the tenth schedule, situated in the territory of bifurcated State of Andhra Pradesh will stand allocated to that State and the State of cannot have any claim over the said property – For example University is situated in of tenth schedule, w ill stand allocated exclusively to the State of Andhra Pradesh despite this legal status of the institutions mentioned in the tenth schedule, they will continue to serve the people of the other State within which it is not located, which will not be less to such people than what were being provided to them before the appointed day, for such period and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the two State Governments within one year from the date of the appointed day – Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General for the respondents.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the appointment of the second respondent as a competent authority vide G.O. Rt. No. 71, dated 05.05.2015, and for a direction to the first respondent to forthwith constitute a Waqf Board in accordance with Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
3. The admitted case of the parties is that the tenure of the erstwhile Waqf Board came to an end in December, 2013, and a Special Officer was appointed to manage the affairs of the Waqf Board and his term also came to an end in June 2014. In the meanwhile, the State was bifurcated with effect from 02.06.2014. On 20.06.2014 a Special Officer was appointed for the Telangana State Waqf Board for a period of one year, and the said period of one year was reduced to six months vide G.O. Rt. No. 77, dated 23.06.2013. Another G.O. Rt. No. 298, dated 01.08.2014 was issued appointing the erstwhile Special Officer as the Director of Minorities Welfare, Hyderabad, and also as the Special Officer of the Waqf Board, until further orders. G.O. Rt. No. 18, dated 08.08.2014, was issued fixing the tenure of the Special Officer as six months. The Special Officer was reappointed by G.O. Rt. No. 16, dated 06.02.2015, after expiry of the period of six months. G.O. Rt. No. 73, dated 20.06.2014, was challenged in W.P. No. 2326 of 2015, and this Court, by order dated 24.03.2015 in W.P.M.P. No. 3105 of 2015, suspended the said Government Order. But at that time, the said G.O. Rt. No. 73, dated 20.06.2014, was not in operation by virtue of G.O. Rt. No. 298, dated 01.08.2014, which superseded all the earlier Government Orders. While so, the Government appointed a competent authority to exercise powers and functions of the Waqf Board for a period of six months by G.O. Rt. No. 71, dated 05.05.2015, which is challenged in the present Writ Petition.
4. It is an admitted case of both the parties that there is no provision for appointment of a Special Officer or competent authority after the expiry of the tenure of the Waqf Board under the provisions of the Waqf Act. In that situation, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appointment of the second respondent under G.O. Rt. No. 71, dated 05.05.2015, should be set aside and the first respondent should be directed to constitute the Waqf Board in accordance with Section 14 of the Waqf Act.
5. Learned Advocate General submitted that the Headquarters of the Waqf Board is located in Hyderabad and it is one of the institutions specified in the Tenth Schedule governed by the provisions of Section 75 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The Government framed a scheme for transfer of assets, rights and liabilities as required under Section 102 of the Waqf Act and submitted the same to the Central Government and the decision of the Central Government is awaited. In order to protect the interest of the properties of the Waqf Board, a competent authority is appointed under Section 103 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act read with Section 102 of the Waqf Act. He relied on a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M. Ramappa v. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 777.
6. Now we have to consider the relevant provisions of law in this case. Section 102 of the Waqf Act, reads as follows:
"102. Special provision for reorganisation of certain Boards:--(1) Where on account of the reorganisation of States under any law providing reorganisation of States, the whole or any part of a State in respect of which a Board was, immediately before the day of such reorganisation, functioning has been transferred on that day to another State and by reason of such transfer, it appears to the Government of a State in any part of which the Board is functioning that the Board should be dissolved or that it should be reconstituted as an Intra-State Board for the whole or any part o
