The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the inquiry and decision by the Board as prescribed in Section 64 of the Wakf Act, 1995, and highlighted that the mere existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the order is without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the order in proceedings bearing File No.15/H3/J1/1/92/Z/SupplyII, dt.14.03.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, null, void, and without jurisdiction, and contrary to the provisions under the Wakf Act, 1995(for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri A.M. Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Maniklal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Minority Welfare appearing for 1st respondent, Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3, and Sri S. Ganesh Rao, learned Counsel appearing for 4th respondent; and with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal.

3. Petitioner contends that he was appointed as Mutavalli of Wakf Institution, namely Maqbera Abdul Haq situated at Boats Club, Secunderabad vide proceedings drt.22.11.2013; that by the impugned order dt.14.03.2022 passed by the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the 2nd respondent, he has been removed as Mutavalli; that Section 64 of the Act deals with the manner and method of removal of Mutavalli; that the impugned order removing the petitioner as Mutavalli, is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 64 of the Act r/w Rule 24-A of the A.P. Wakf Rules, 2000(for short ‘the Rules’); that no enquiry as contemplated under Section 64 of the Act was conducted before issuing the impugned proceedings; that the impugned order is passed by a person, who has no authority under the Act, and that as a result of non-adherence to the said procedure, there has been violation of principles of natural justice.

4. In support of the above said contentions, Sri A.M. Qureshi, learned Senior counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the judgments in Zaheer Ahmed Khan v. A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others, 2014 (3) ALD 51 and Mulla Rahim Saheb and Ors. v. A.P. State Wakf Board and Anr., 1997 (2) ALD 79.

5. Per contra, Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 & 3 would seek to justify the impugned order and contend that as there is special forum, that has been created under the Act, the petitioner should be relegated to approach the said forum to avail appropriate remedy, and cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. In support of the said contentions, learned Senior Counsel, by drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1997 (3) SCC 261, would contend that the 2nd respondent invoked the provisions of Section 64 of the Act to remove the petitioner as Mutavalli by issuing the impugned proceedings for acting in contravention of the provisions of the Act, as is evident from the complaint made against the petitioner with the police authorities, and the charge sheet filed therein, regarding fabrication of records, which is the basis for the petitioner to be appointed as Mutavalli.

7. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that since a complaint of fabrication of Munthaquab is alleged, on the basis of which petitioner was appointed as Mutavalli in question, the proper course for the petitioner would be to approach the Tribunal to question the impugned order and not by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum and Ors., [Judgment dt. 23.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5297 of 2004=MANU/SC/0970/2010].

8. I have noted the contentions of learned counsel appearing for respective parties.

9. The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the removal of petitioner as Mutavalli by the 2nd respondent is in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 64 of the Act