ORDER:

01. The short grievance of the petitioner is that, the impugned proceeding dated 15.09.2022, issued by the 1st respondent is contrary to the orders passed in W.P.No.13481 of 2015, dated 08.06.2015, as the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to appoint a committee under the said proceedings.

02. Heard Sri Md.Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Minorities Welfare Department.

03. Sri Md.Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, earlier the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.13481 of 2015 questioning the office order where under a person was authorized and directed him to conduct election and this Court allowed the said Writ Petition and set aside the office order by taking into consideration the submissions made by the then learned Standing Counsel for AP Wakf Board that the executive officer has no power to appoint any person for conducting election as the mosque was not registered.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, in view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel in W.P.No.13481 of 2015 the authorities cannot appoint a committee to the petitioner’s Dargah. As such, the present writ petition is filed and prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee V State of Tamilnadu and ors.

05. On the other hand, Sri Md. Gayasuddin, learned Standing Counsel for Wakf Board, submitted that, under Section 32 of Wakf Act, 1995, the Executive Officer can appoint a committee and the observation made by this Court in the Judgment referred by the petitioner in W.P.No.13481 of 2015 cannot be taken into consideration, as the then learned Standing counsel has not properly assisted this Court by bringing the proper rule position. Infact, the respondent Executive Officer has every right to appoint a committee by virtue of Section 32, 35 and 18 of A.P Wakf Act. He further submitted that, if at all the petitioner wants to claim any title over the properties of Dargah, they can as well file a suit before appropriate Civil Court. He further submitted that, the petitioner himself has stated in the affidavit that a society has been formed in the name and style of “Kandukur Town Eidgah Mosjid Committee” and he is the president of the said Society. In the said circumstances he does not fall under the meaning “person interested” under Section 3 (k) of A.P. Wakf Act. The writ petition itself is not maintainable and it has to be dismissed on the sole ground itself. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Madrasa Ahla Sunnath Bahrul Uloon, Visakhapatnam v. State of Andra Pradesh and others reported in 2004 (2) ALD 365. He further contended that, the petitioner has no locus to question the impugned proceedings. Even otherwise, the committee appointed under impugned proceedings dated 15.09.2022 for a period of one year, it is going to be expired by another few days and if at all the petitioner wants to come as a member of the committee and he can as well make a representation so that the authorities would consider and take steps as per law. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

06. Perused the material available on record.

07. The main grievance of the petitioner herein is that, the then learned Standing Counsel for A.P Wakf Board has brought to the notice of this Court, while passing order in W.P.No.13481 of 2015 to the effect that the Executive Officer has no power to authorize any person to conduct elections. Now the present impugned proceedings have been passed by Chief Executive Officer dated 15.09.2022, thereby a committee has been appointed to the Dargha. Except