Appointment of Waqf managing committees must comply with statutory regulations, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and election procedures when multiple applications exist.

ORDER :

T.MADHAVI DEVI, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in appointing the respondent No.3 as Mutawalli of Jama Masjid, A.C.Guards, bearing H.No.10-1-1181, vide proceedings dated 04.05.2023 and also Graveyard bearing H.No.6-2-973, situated at Khairatabad, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated 01.05.2023, without following regulation 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Managing Committee (Constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulation, 2009 as illegal and arbitrary and as in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the subject institution bearing house No.10-1- 1181, is situated at A.C.Guards, Hyderabad and the petitioner and others of the Towliath Committee were taking care of the same for more than 55 years. It is submitted that the tenure of the said committee was extended from time to time and that the last proceedings for extension of tenure dates were 25.05.2017 and 30.05.2017, respectively. It is stated that since the tenure of the said committee was to expire on 24.05.2020 and due to the Covid-19 lockdown, the tenure was not extended immediately and the petitioner, through the office of the Member of Legislative Assembly, approached the respondent No.2 and prayed for an extension of the tenure of his committee. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 accepted the same and promised to issue proceedings, but, instead, the impugned proceedings dated 04.05.2023 were issued and the petitioner and others were prevented from discharging their duties. It is submitted that in spite of said proceedings, the petitioner and his committee alone are discharging their functions and it is stated that the impugned proceedings dated 04.05.2023 were issued by the respondent No.2, which is ultra vires and nonest in the eyes of law for the gross violation of the requirements for supersession of the committee and that the provisions of Section 67 of the Waqf Act, 1995, has not been followed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while supporting the contentions raised in the writ affidavit, has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Managing Committee (Constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulation, 2009 and particularly Rule 5(2) thereof, to submit that in the absence of a unanimous panel the managing committee of the Waqf/Waqf institution may be constituted through election from amongst the Mussalies of the Wakf/Wakf institution conducted under the supervision of the Inspector Auditor of the Board. He further submitted that even if it is considered that there was an application from the respondent No.3 committee, then there being two applications, there should have been elections and since the said procedure has not been followed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the existing managing committee also ought to have been given a notice and since such a procedure was not followed, it is also in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Telangana State Waqf Board Vs. M/s.Solithro Private Limited in W.A.No.1432 of 2016 and batch, to submit that having an alternative remedy itself is not a bar in entertaining the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, however, relied upon the averments made