WA/1828/2008 of Habeeb Mubtaba Al-Idroos, Vs Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, on 31 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAand

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

WRIT APPEAL No.1828 of 2008

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated16/12/2008 in WP NO : 4970 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.)16/12/2008 in WP NO : 4970 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:

Habeeb Mubtaba Al-Idroos, S/o. Late Habeeb Jafar Al-Idroos,R/o. H.No. 20-4-448, Fathe Darwazaq, Hyderabad.

..... APPELLANT

AND

Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Razzack Manzil, Haj House Building, Nampally, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant : MR.P.LAKSHMA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent : MR.ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN

The Court made the following :

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAand

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma)

Heard Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel appearing for theappellant as well as Sri Abdul Najeeb Khan, learned Standing Counsel forA.P. Wakf Board.

2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 16-12-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court inW.P.No.4970 of 2008.

3. Appellant is petitioner and respondent is respondent in the writpetition.

4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties arereferred to as per their array in the writ petition.

5. Petitioner is Naib Mutawalli of Wakf institution, “Darga KhitteySaleheen” situated at Darusalam, Nampally, Hyderabad. Basing oncertain allegations levelled against the petitioner, an enquiry wasconducted and eventually the appellate authority i.e., the Wakf Tribunal,remanded the matter to the Wakf Board for conducting enquiry, afresh.

6. Be that as it may, even before initiation of enquiry, through theproceedings, dated 28-02-2008, issued under Section 54 (3) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for brevity “the Act”), impugned in thewrit petition, the respondent ordered removal of encroachment by thepetitioner at Darga, grave yard and attached properties.

7. We cannot go into the merits of the case or express any opinionas to whether the petitioner is an encroacher or not? However, we cannotforget the fact that the proceedings issued against the petitioner went uptothe appellate authority and the matter was remanded to the Wakf Board forfresh consideration.

8. As of now, the charges levelled against the petitioner, theresultant enquiry and the consequences thereof shall have to be decidedby the Wakf Board. Therefore, even before initiation of enquiry, treating thepetitioner as an encroacher is adding something more to the insinuationalready attached to the petitioner and raising curtain for a fresh litigation,which, in our considered view, is not desirable.

9. However, the learned single Judge, through the impugned order,dated 16-12-2008, disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitionerto approach the Wakf Tribunal, as provided under Section 54 (4) of theAct, to file a suit and also ordered to maintain status quo for a period of twoweeks from the date of the said order to enable the petitioner to obtainappropriate orders from the Wakf Tribunal.

10. No doubt, the Tribunal has power to grant interim orders. But,considerable time will be taken to file an application by the petitioner andto pass appropriate orders by the Tribunal, after giving due opportunity toboth the parties. Therefore, in order to prevent further consumption of timeby the Tribunal in passing orders on the interlocutory application itself, wedeem it appropriate to direct the respondent to maintain status quopending disposal of the suit being filed by the petitioner, within a period oftwo weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

11. However, it is clarified that if no suit is filed by the petitioner, asdirected above, the respondent can proceed with the matter in accordancewith law and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the suit being filed bythe petitioner with utmost expedition, preferably on priority basis.

12. With the above observations and modification of the impugnedorder, dated 16-12-2008, of the learned single Judge, the writ appeal isdisposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________

JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

__________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

31-12-2008.Msr

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

31-12-2008(Msr)