CC/654/2026 of Mohd Lateef Khan Vs Mohammed Faiyaz on 3 September 2026

O R D E R:

Petitioner, party –in- person, complains that the order dated 24.02.2025 in Writ Petition No. 23482 of 2023 is not complied with deliberately and willfully.

2. By the aforesaid order, this Court directed the Telangana State Waqf Board to furnish the information pursuant to petitioner’s Application dated 29.04.2023 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. According to petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 24.02.2025, he approached respondents numerous times seeking certain information, but only one out of the five queries were answered on 25.06.2025 and other queries were refused. It is stated,

Respondent No.1 herein is also respondent in O.S. No. 19 of 2022 on the file of the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal and there too he has committed Contempt of Court by not holding election as per the orders of the Tribunal in I.A. No. 261 of 2022. Hence, it is prayed that respondents be punished for gross negligence on their part.

3. Respondents filed compliance report dated 13.03.2026 stating that they have furnished the information regarding query Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, but they did not furnish the information regarding Query No.4 i.e. the compliance report of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No. 261 of 2022 and I.A.No. 308 of 2022 in O.S.No. 19 of 2022 in which the Waqf Board is Respondent / Defendant No.2. The reason for not furnishing the information is stated as under: “ (i) The Hon’ble Telangana State Waqf Tribunal vide its Common order dated 21.01.2023 (pronounced in open Court on 24th January 2023) in I.A.No. 261 of 2022 and I.A.No. 308 of 2022 in O.S.No. 19 of 2022 directed the Telangana State Waqf Board to conduct fresh elections and constitute a new Managing Committee to the schedule property (Muslim Graveyard, Talban) within two months from the date of the said order with compliance to be reported on 28.03.2023.

(ii) The compliance report as sought under Query No.4 directly pertains to whether the Telangana State Waqf Board conducted the elections as directed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. We humbly submit that the elections and constitution of the new Managing Committee as directed by the Hon’ble Tribunal have not been completed / conducted as of the date of this affidavit and therefore, a compliance report in its true and complete sense does not exist as a document that can be furnished under the RTI Act, 2005.

(iii) Since there is no affirmative compliance having been made by the Waqf Board with respect to the directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal, there is no compliance report in existence that can be provided. Furnishing a document that does not exist is not possible within the scope of Section 6 and Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(iv) We acknowledge and deeply regret the failure on the part of the Telangana State Waqf Board in not implementing the directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal in I.A.No.261 of 2022 and I.A.No. 308 of 2022 and further acknowledge that this non-compliance has been the subject matter of concern before this Hon’ble Court as well.

(v) We further acknowledge that non-holding of elections as directed by the Waaf Tribunal has resulted in ongoing disputes with respect to the management of the Muslim graveyard, Tadban which is a notified waqf comprising the graveyard, Dargah Syed Saheb, and two dilapidated mosques in an area of Acs.8.00 enclosed by a compound wall”.

3.1. According to respondents, except query No.4, all other information sought vide RTI Application dated 29.04.2023 has been duly furnished to petitioner in compliance with the order dated 24.02.2025. They further undertake that steps would be initiated forthwith by the Waqf Board to conduct fresh elections and constitute the Managing Committee of the Muslim Graveyard, Talban in compliance with the directions of this Waqf Tribunal; upon such elections being conducted and the compliance report being prepared, the same would be immediately furnished to the RTI Applicant / petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for respondents Sri Farhan Azam Khan also filed a memo dated 03.07.2026 before this Court to the effect that: “ The answering respondents hereby place further requisite information pertaining to roceedings issued by the Chief Executive Officer Telangana Waqf Board vides No.01/Sec-bad/C/2022, dated: 10/4/2026 and dated: 30/6/2026 appointing Shri. Sameen Arif, Assistant Secretary, TGWB, as Election Officer and concurrent direction to Inspector Auditor Waqf TGWB Circle 587 to co-ordinate in up-dation of voters list and assist conduct elections tentatively pursuant to schedule fixed on 1st July 2026 onwards as compliance of this Hon'ble Court observations in C.C. No. 654 of 2026 pursuant to orders W.P.No:23482 of 2023 dated:24th February 2025 may be requisites for closer of the instant contempt case in reference to (1) Graveyard (2) Dargah Hazarat Syed Saheb (3) Two Dilapidated Masjid, area 4 acers, situated at Tadbun Secunderabad District Notified in A. P. Gazette Notification No:40C. dated:7/10/1982, under Towliath of Managing Committee commonly Known as Muslim Graveyard Tadbun Secunderabad. May have to be considered in addition to previous as born out of this Hon'ble Courts record as being substantial compliance for closer of the instant contempt case. Now erroneously alleging non- compliance of directions passed by the TGWT in I.A. No:26/2022, & Ι.Α.No:308/2022, O.S.No:19/2022 being legally untenable. In view of the afore stated the answering respondents have furnished information of initiation conduct of elections as electorate/voters ought to be living human beings of those deceased buried corps or/as mussalies performing prayers in dilapidated two Mosque contingently representing for constitution of Managing Committee of Graveyard & Dargah”.

5. In view of the compliance report and the memo, extracted supra, filed on behalf of respondents, this Court is of the opinion that respondents have not committed any willful default or deliberate incompliance of the order under contempt. Therefore, the Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed.

6. The Contempt Case is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

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

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 03nd September 2026 ksld