Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
The Managing Committee, Azeemuddin Masjid - Appellant
Versus
Shaik Abdul Rahim @ S.Khaja, Pesh-Imam of Azeemuddin Masjid & Others - Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.2 of 2021
Decided On : 01-04-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.MD.Sharfuddin
For the Respondent: Mr.S.M.Subhan, Mr.S.Arifullah, Mr.Shaik Karimullah
Point of Law: Constitution of a committee under the presidentship of Janab Haji S.Md.Jaffar Saheb for two years under Section 18 of the Waqf Act, 1995, from the date of issuing of the proceedings in respect of the mosque in dispute. Hence, submit that the order impugned requires no interference.
Headnote:
Waqf Act, 1995 - Section 18 - Payment of honorarium and on temporary basis - Appointment of Pesh-Imam is made by the members - Petitioner was working as Pesh-Imam of appellant masjid since appellant institute was notified by Waqf Board in and a new committee was appointed vide proceedings for a period of two years- It is said that petitioner was unanimously elected by congregation (jamath) as he possesses highest qualification being Alim- According to him Government makes a monthly payment for as salary which is in addition to amount towards honorarium- As amount of honorarium paid is less than what is stipulated in Minorities Welfare (IDM) Department a notice was issued respondent (appellant herein)- Pursuant thereto respondent issued a letter stating that services of petitioner stand terminated –
Finding of the Court:
Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board Vijayawada would clearly show that a committee consisting of President Vice-President Secretary Treasurer and Members was constituted for management of this mosque i.e. situated at Nagar Kurnool Town for a period of two years and name of 1st respondent – writ petitioner do figure as a Member of committee in proceedings dated Chief Executive Officer Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board Vijayawada is staring at appellant- Further Inspector Auditor A.P - State Wakf Board Collect orate Kurnool in its letter dated categorically states that masjid is a notified mosque- It was informed to him that Pesh-Imam is creating nuisance and problems at masjid and requested to settle matter- Hence a report came to be lodged before Town Police Station Kurnool for taking necessary action against Pesh-Imam for maintaining peaceful atmosphere in locality of masjid and at time of offering prayers- Therefore these two proceedings clearly indicate that this mosque is control of Waqf Board –
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by this Court on 27.01.2020 in W.P.No.14121 of 2019, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition holding the termination of the Writ Petitioner bad in law, as it was not preceded by any preliminary enquiry and no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the order of termination, the respondents therein preferred the present Writ Appeal.
2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition show that the petitioner was working as Pesh-Imam of the appellant masjid since 1996. The appellant institute was notified by Waqf Board in the year 2017 and a new committee was appointed vide proceedings, dated 14.11.2017, for a period of two years. It is said that the petitioner was unanimously elected by congregation (jamath) as he possesses highest qualification, being Alim. According to him, the Government makes a monthly payment for Rs.8,000/-as salary, which is in addition to the amount of Rs.2,000/-towards honorarium. As the amount of honorarium paid is less than what is stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.21, Minorities Welfare (IDM) Department, dated 08.06.2016, a notice was issued to the 4th respondent (appellant herein). Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent issued a letter, dated 05.09.2019, stating that the services of the petitioner stand terminated, as his behaviour is not up to the mark.
3. Challenging the action of the authorities in terminating his services vide proceedings, dated 05.09.2019, a Writ Petition came to be filed. After hearing all concerned and more particularly, taking into consideration the averments made in the counter by the 4th respondent, learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the proceedings, dated 05.09.2019. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed.
4. Sri Sharfuddin, learned counsel appearing for the Managing Committee of the mosque, mainly submits that order of the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law. According to him, Pesh-Imam is a prayer leader and his appointment as a prayer leader is considered desirable, but not always obligatory as per Islamic law. It is urged that Pesh-Imam, besides being a free, honest person, must be authoritative in religious matters. He is also expected to maintain dignity. Since the appellant mosque is a private mosque, appointment of Pesh-Imam is made by the members of the congregation through majority voting and as such, the question of issuing any notice to the petitioner would not arise. In other words, his plea is that this being a private mosque, the appellant committee appointed the writ petitioner as Pesh-Imam (prayer leader) to lead the prayers on honorarium. As the Writ Petitioner (1st respondent herein) is not appointed by the Waqf Board, the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 would not apply to his appointment and the removal is within the domain of the appellant herein. Since the Pesh-Imam was appointed on temporary basis; as his acts were bringing disrepute to the mussallies of the said mosque; and to protect the dignity of the post of Pesh-Imam, submits that learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the order of termination.
5. On the other hand, Sri Shaik Karimullah, learned Standing Counsel for the Waqf Board and Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) mainly submit that the proceedings, dated 14.11.2017, issued by Waqf Board clearly show that Azeemuddin Masjid, situated at Azeemuddin Nagar, Kurnool, is a notified Waqf Institution. The said proceedings, dated 14.11.2017, refer to constitution of a committee under the presidentship of Janab Haji S.Md.Jaffar Saheb for two years under Section 18 of the Waqf Act, 1995, from the date of issuing of the proceedings in respect of the mosque in dispute. Hence, submit that the order impugned requires no interference.
6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the proceedings issued by the Azeemuddin Masjid Comm
