THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.827 of 2024 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Ananthula Ravinder, learned Government Pleader for B.C.Welfare, Social Welfare and Minority Welfare Department, for respondent No.1; Sri Mohd. Ismail, learned counsel for respondent No.2; and Sri Mohd. Asif Amjad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 10.

2. Heard on admission.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assailed the order dated 21.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.20048 of 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge declined the relief sought by the appellant (writ petitioner) and relegated the appellant to avail the remedy before the Waqf Tribunal. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was appointed as Mutawalli and was never removed by any express order in exercise of power under Section 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995. In absence thereof, the respondents had no authority, jurisdiction and competence to appoint a Committee by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 26.06.2023. By placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.P.Wakf Board v. Mohd. Hidyathulla1 and another judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Md. Saleem Ur Rahman v. A.P.State Wakf Board, 2007 (4) ALD 527, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no disputed question of fact and therefore relegating the appellant to the Waqf Tribunal was not proper. When principles of natural justice are grossly violated, the writ petition is maintainable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 10 urged that the direction of the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Board of Waqf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum, (2010) 14 SCC 588 and the

1 AIR 1974 AP 287

Court of first instance in relation to all the matters pertaining to Waqf is the Waqf Tribunal and the Civil Court and High Court should not straight away entertain the petition.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court in Anis Fatma Begum (supra) is not in relation to Mutawalli and therefore is distinguishable.

6. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above and no other point is pressed.

7. The Supreme Court has drawn the curtains on this aspect in its judgment in Anis Fatma Begum (supra), the relevant portion of which reads thus:-

“7. The dispute in the present case relates to a wakf. In our opinion, all matters pertaining to wakfs should be filed in the first instance before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and should not be entertained by the civil court or by the High Court straightaway under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may be mentioned that the Wakf Act, 1995 is a recent parliamentary statute which has constituted a Special Tribunal for deciding disputes relating to wakfs. The obvious purpose of constituting such a Tribunal was that a lot of cases relating to wakfs were being filed in the courts in India and they were occupying a lot of time of all the courts in the country which resulted in increase in pendency of cases in the courts. Hence, a Special Tribunal has been constituted for deciding such matters.

8. Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 states:

“83. Constitution of tribunals, etc.—(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property under this Act and define the local limits and ju