HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 31805 OF 2011

O R D E R :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

a) issue a writ of Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the Board Resolution No. 488/09 dated 20.10.2009 and Order No. F.No.H1/6/87/Suppl., dated 24.10.2009 passed by the 2^nd respondent Waqf Board appointing the

4^th respondent as Mutawalli of the 3^rd respondent waqf;

b) issue a writ of quo warranto, mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ declaring that the appointment of the 4th respondent as Muthawalli of the 3rd respondent waqf is invalid, illegal and non-est in the eyes of law and that the continuance of the 4^th respondent as illegal; and c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 4^th respondent to exercise powers vested in it under the Waqf Act, 1995 and ex-debito justiciae forthwith appoint a management committee to oversee the management of the 3^rd respondent waqf.

2. It is stated that petitioner is a person interested within the meaning of Section 3(k) of the Waqf Act, 1955 as he is a Musalli / offerer of Namaz at Jamia Masjid Musheerabad, Hyderabad. The 3rd respondent Jamia Masjid Musheerabad is attached to a Sunni Muslim graveyard and is the registered Sunni Waqf Institution and this institution has been under the direct control of the 2^nd respondent waqf board. Petitioner questions in this Writ Petition appointment of the 4^th respondent as Muthawalli of the 3rd respondent waqf vide impugned order dated 24.10.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent who has no authority to pass the said order and Board Resolution dated 20.10.2009 of the 2^nd respondent Board which resolved to appoint the 4^th respondent as Muthawalli of the 3^rd respondent waqf.

3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the lis in this Writ Petition so also the one in Writ Petition No. 23065 of 2009 is one and the same. The composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh while dealing with Writ Petitions No. 23065 of 2009 and 18278 and 19379 of 2010 commonly, vide order dated

19.01.2012, observed as under:

“ It is not in dispute that the petitioner has statutory remedy as provided under Section 83(1) of the Act to approach the Tribunal constituted under the Act for redressal of his grievance. However, availability of statutory remedy is not a bar in case of where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. None of the above three exceptional circumstances is made out by the petitioner to avoid the statutory remedy provided to him. It is well settled that before a Writ Court exercises its public law jurisdiction, it would insist, as a general rule, that alternative remedies available under the statutes be first taken recourse to unless strong reasons exist therefor. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner questioning the appointment of the 3^rd respondent as Muthawalli of Jamia Masjid without availing the statutory remedy is not maintainable.

Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 23065 of 2009 is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 83(1) of the Act.”

4. In view of the order in Writ Petition No. 23065 of 2009, since there is a statutory remedy available to petitioner under Section 83(1) of the Act, without exhausting the said remedy, petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Writ Petition is also disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 83(1) of the Waqf Act.

No costs.

5. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

-------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

19^th October 2023 ksld