WP/3148/2025 of Syed Mohammed Mohiuddin Quadri Vs The State of Telangana on 12 December 2025

ORDER:

The case of Petitioner is that the lineal descendant of the saint after the demise of Waqif Syed Waliullah Hussaini Quadri S/o Syed Najaf Alisha Quadri, certain disputes cropped up within the members of the family regarding appointment of Mutawalli. On intervention of the family members, a compromise was recorded before the Secretary, AP State Waqf Board in Case No. 13/2 of 1959. As per the compromise, father of petitioner Syed Ghouse Moinuddin Quadri was declared. as a successor of late Waliullah Quadri. The relevant content of the compromise dated 25.02.1960 is extracted. as und.er:

c o m m i tt e e, ( * ", "*",1 ; " IT: #*::;",,*;:"'S J:. Tl'i' "rTi:,, ; :1*lfi Tawliat (Management) and to protect the Wakf Proprerties. The said committee would enjoy the absolute owners of the Managenrent.

2. Th;rt Syed Ghous Mohiuddin Quadris/o.Late Syerl Shah Walluliah Hussaini Saheb, would be the President of the said corrLmittee and other persons would be the members of the Committee.

3. That., in future, if the members of committee could r.ot discharge their function as a Presidcnt and as the members, then follorving would be the arrangcmcrrt.

1. That, in case of eventuality occurs in respect of the President of Committee, his legal heirs of his nominee, would take his place and would discharge his duties as of the President.

2. That, in case of eventuality occurs in respect of ttre members of the Committee, they would enjoy the same rights, as mentionecl above, that their legal heirs or their nominee, would take their place ancl would discharge their function. But, such nominations, would be subjcct to the approval of the Presiderrt of the Committee or else the President would nominate.

3. That,, at present juncture, the Constitution of the Committee would be as follows. The approval of which is required.

1. Syed Ghous Mohiuddin Quadri - President 2- Syed Fakhir Mohiuddin Quadri - menrber

3. Syed Yaquo.:b Hussaini Quadri- member -1. S1,ed Khaja N{ohiuddin Quadri.- menrber

3. Syed Mahrncod Hussaini Quadri- member

6. Syed Sultan Mohiuddin Quadri- member

7. Syed I)asha Mohiuddin Quadri- member The Committee would have right to frame a Bye-Lar,vs to manage the affairs of l)argha, which would be in consonance wit.jr the rules and regulations of the Wakf Act.

4. That, the present parties of the case would withdrarv their objections filed in thir; proceedings, as per the terms and conditions of this Family Compromise

5. That, the present proceedings is related to the succession of Late Syed Shah Walliullah Hussaini and the relationship is not disputed. Hence, his succession may be granted in the name of Syed C.hous Mohiuddin Quadri S/o Syed Walliullah Hussaini.

J Therefore, it is requested that:

1. That the said Family Compromise may kindly be accepted, after due verification.

2. That, the succession of late Syed Shah Walliullah Hussaini may kindly be sanctioned in the name of Syed Ghous Mohiuddin.

3. That, as described above, the constitution of the said committee, may kindly be allowed and the said committee may be bestowed with the right of management, as per rules.

4. That, the waki Properties of Dargah as it stands may kindly be released in the name of the President Committee."

1.1. It is stated, as per the above compromise, the President of the Committee will nominate the future President and eventually, his successor wili become the President. On the same note, the successors or the legal heirs of the committee members will continue as committee members. While things stood thus, certain disputes arose between President of the Committee and Waqf Board, therefore, the issue went before the Court. i"r ' i L.2. Then the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 23 of 1992 held that "in the interest of Dargha, it would be necessary to re-constitute a new Towliath Committee in accordance with the terms of the compromise dated 25-02-1960 which is current and binding on all the parties by continuing Sri Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri (father of petitioner) as the Chairman of the Committee. The other six members of the Committee shall be appointed in accordance with the terms of the compromise from among the persons who are eligible under the compromise as the nlembers of the Committee. :

1.3. Upon the demise of Syed Ghotts;e Mohiuddin Quadri, his first son Syed Sultan Mohiuddir: Quadri rv\,'as appointed as President of the Towliath Committee uide A.P. Gazette drated 20.01.2005. His term of office was initialiy, for a period of trvo years, which was extended for three years as per Gazette dated 08.02.2007. His appointment was challenged in OA No. 45; of 2016 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed ttre OA, against which CRP No. 1608 of 2'.021 was filed. While allc,wing the CRP, this Court by order dat,ed 27.09.2023 ordered as under: " The Wakf Board is directed to constitute a Towlith committee frorn the members of all the branches and the President shall be appointed from the first branch as per the terms of the compromise dated 25.02.1960 and as per the directions of the Divisior Bench of this court in IVA No. 23 of 1992 dated 03.02.1992. The res;oondent No. 3- Wakf Board is directed to reconstitute the Towlith cornmittee of the subject tlargah within three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of ttris order."

1.4. The orders of this Court were carriecl in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 3721 of 2024 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the orders of this Court. However, the 2nd respondent-Wakf Board, in gross violation of the said orders, constituted a Committee against the compromise, order passed in Writ Appeal, cirder in the CRP and objections of petitioner ahd constituted Towliath Committee by the impugned order dated L8.I2.2O22 on the pretext that there are criminal complaints against petitioner.

2. This Court by order dated 10.02.2025 directed both the parties to maintain status quo existing as on that day with regard to the impugned order passed by the 2"d respondent dated L8.L2.2024 and the said ord.er was extended from time to time.

3. The 2"d respondent-Wakf Board fiied its counter. While ackngwl;*g:t the litigation/cases aforemen,tol,.,5,",:: admitted that petitioner belongs to the f,rrst branch of late Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri. Since the Wakf Board appointed the grandson of late Syed Ghoue Mohiuddin Quadri (first branch) by name Syed Zain-ulabdedin Hussaini Quadri (3'd respondent) as President of the Towliath Committee and Syed Azrnat Quad.ri, the great-grandson of late Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri as a Committee Member, there is suflicient representation of the branch of late Syed Ghouse Mohiddin Quadri. It is stated that ,',. ' ,:: .,

the President and other members of the Committee were appointerl as per directions of this Court and as per the compromise cleed. In view of Article 14 of the Constitution, a son cannot enjo-v preferential status as against a son of a daughter (his sister) as both of them come within the class;ification of the phrase 'f,lmily member and legal heir'. Petition,:r's contention that a d,aughter's son is not a family member of late Syed Ghouse N{ohiddin Quadri is not correct.

3.1. It is stated, the Writ Petition is not maintainable since thr: Committee appointed by the State' Wakf Board constitutes an executive function and is not amenable to Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court cannot arrt as a super executive by deciding the viability of the qualifications and disqualifi<:ations of the candidates who applied for being appointed as the Chairman/Members of the Towliath Committee. Even if it is presumed that this Court can, the same would be ,l purely factual issue which mandates a trial.

3.2. The Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short, 'the ActJ is hauing executive jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the irnpugned order dated 18.12.2024, hence, this Court cannot entertain this Writ Petition.

4. Respondents 3 to 9 filed counter more or less in the lines of the 2"d respondent :and also contending that Writ Petition is not maintainable and the Wakf Tribunal is having exclusive jurisdiction to the challenge to the impugned order. According to thern, petitioner raised disputed questions of facts, as such, he cannot seek adjudicaiton under Article 226 ofi t}:'e Cosntituiotn when the effective, eficacious and alternative rfemedy is availabel fori him befeore ithe Telangana State Waqf Tribunal at Hyderabd udner Secion 83 ofi the Act.

4. L. It is also stated, these respondents. are President and Members of Towliath Committee of the Dargah Hazrath Ilam Ali Shah Q""1",. "1L1].1 *o:-3":' Khankhah and its attached properties situated at Roshan-Ud-Dowla Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, T.G., by virtue of the proceedings dated 18.12.2024 of Respondent No.2 and managing the Wakf Institution without any complaint from any quarter. By virtue of the interim order, these respondents are managing the subject Wakf Institution.

4.2. According to these respondents, the impugned proceedings were issued after following due process of law and I !t t i taking into consideration the representation of petitioner as well as others and also in consonance with compromise dated

25. O2.19t'sO, approved by Respondent No.2 in proceedings dated 03.04.19()3 confirmed by the Division Bench ol' this Court in Writ Appeal No. 23 of tgg2 dated O3.O2.Lgg2 as well as the directions; in C.R.P. No. 1608 of 2O2l dated 27.Og.2023, as such there is no illegality and impropriety in issuing the impugned proceedings.

4.3. It is further stated, the brother of petitioner Syed Sultan Nlohiuddin Quadri was appointed as Mutawalli by Respondent No.2 uide Proceedings dated 29.06.20 12 which was questioneC by Respondent No.4 and some other p,ersons in O.A. No.45 of :2016 (Old O.A. No. 55 of 2012) on the file of Hon'ble Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad which allowed the :. -,.. . j.ij ,l';i. 4::.,:; . ,r_ same by rrrder dated OL.IO.2O21 against which the brother of petitioner preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 1608 of 2O2l which has been disposed by this Court b5, order dated

27. O9.2023.

4.4. These respondents state that petitioner is involved in alienation of Wakf property and Respondent .No.2 issued a letter to the police concerned dated 12.02.2022, therefore, , petitioner has no qualification to become a member to the .;r' .{ . i..$?+: :J'ir.-.. r' I I t I I I I i : ': rl I I I I I I i i l l I I I : !. I 1,,

- , ,. ', ,,'' ,. -:,- ,, ._:.' a.t.!l ; :.r.r=i lliiJ.:.fii.::: .rJ.:HdgE+iriJ.Ei

Towliath Committee- It is also stated, Respondent No.3 is the maternal grandson of Hazrath Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri and Respondent No.5 is also great grandson of Haztath Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri, as such, the claim of petitioner that Respondents 3 and 5 are not members of the family is totally false. According to these respondents, brother of petitioner was only a Mutawalli not the President because the Wakf Board has not constituted a Committee and a single person cannot be said to be a President.

4.5. It is further stated, 'family' means sons and daughters, son's sons and son's daughters, daughter's sons and daughter's daughter, BS such, the daughters cannot be eliminated from the family tree and the claim of petitioner cannot be tenable in the tenets of the Mohammedan law.

5. Heard Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Farh an Azarn Khan, learned. Standing Counsel for Waqf Board and Sri A.M. Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Mohd. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel for Respond.ents 3 to 9.

6. At the threshold, this Court desires to deal with the contention of maintainability, The State Wakf Board and other respondents mainly contend that under section 83 (5) and (7) of 1, . : ,j,,;:,. .r:. 1 r fj19

1., I,! I ! l! i i ,I 'I

the Act, the Waqf Tribunal is having jurisdiction to address the challenge: to the impugned order dated L8.I2.2O'.24 and without exhausting t his remedy, petitioner approache,d this Court, hence, this Writ Petition is not maintaina.ble. For this propositir)n, respondents rely on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Cotrrt in M.P. Wakf Board. u. Subhan Shah (died) by ZRsr and Kanuar Singh Saini o. High Coutt of Delhiz. ln M.P. Wakf Board.'s ca.se, it is held as under: "

24. The Tribunal had been constituted for the purpose mer-rtionecl in Section 83 of the 1995 Act. It is an adjudi<-.atory body. Its decision is final and binding but then it could not usurJr the jurisdiction of the Board. Our attention has not been drawn to an5' Jrrovision which empowerr; thc tribunal to frame a scheme. In absence of any power vested in thc l'ribunal, the Tribunal out to have left the said function to the Boarrl n,trich is statutorily empowered therefor. Where a statute creates rlifferent authorities to exercise their respective function thereundcr, each of such authority must exercise the fu.nctions within the four corners of the statute."

6.1. In Kanwar Singh Saini's case (supra), it is held as under: "

23. When a statute gives a right and provides a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act. S'hen an Act creates a right or obligation and, enforces the performance thereof in a specified manner "that performance cannot be enforced. in .eny other manner". Thus, for enforcement of tr right/obtigation under a statute, the only remedy available to the person a6grieved is to get '1zooo; 10 scc 696 ' 1zotz14 scc 3o7

l1

adjudication of rights under the said Act. (See Doe d. Bishap of Rochester v. Bridge B&AD (1831) B & AD 847;' Barraclough v. Brown (7897 AC 615); Premier Automobiles Ltd v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1976 1 SCC 496; Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (1990) 1SCC 193." Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation a. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbais wherein it has been held that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Para L4 of the said judgment reads as under: " L4. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by thc High Court not only for issuing writ in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose." i5. Under -Articleg,26,of"the",constitution, the High court,,*?&",++rFll$-ry!d+4rf!6fsx having regard to the facts of ih. """", has a discretion to entertain or ' ' not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Curt imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at 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. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whiripool, 31roea1 8 scc 1 i{+:41--;qit4vsvi,.lii!ii:a:r.,..., j..r ,. '.,, ] . ,. I ii: - -r ': -... :

t2 we would rely on some old decision of the evolutiorLary era of the constitulional law as they still hold the field."

8. This is a chequered litigation. Dis;pute arose in 1960 after the death of qriginal waqif - Syed Waliullah Hussaini : Quactri and to avoid future litigation, a compro.nise deed was recorded before the Wakf Board in Case No. 13/2 of 1959 and it was approved. Again, the proceedings of the Walcf Board dated 29.06.2O,12 appointing the brother of petitioner rvas challenged before thc Tribunal in OA No. 45 of 2016. Now challenge to the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 is third round of litigation. Therefore, without relegating the parties to agit:ate their rights before the Wakf Tribunal, since availability of alter:native remedy is not a bar to this Court to entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 as held by the Honble Supreme Courl. in Whirltrtool '...-... a rd:,..r+{rl+.r$i+dlait*tr4ri,-i :iildi&, its:ii- ::-rrrndi:!r c r .,r+,3-r:ij9$.ii,:,iltj&if*;i;**j+j:.4{iitr*':inli!;...fril Corporation case (supra), this Court has taker-: up this Writ

9. Admittedly, as per the compromise cleed approved in State Wakf Case No. l3l2 of 1959, 'in case of eventuality occurs in respect of the President of Committee, his legal heirs or his nominee would take his place'. So also, the Wakf Tribunal in OA No. 45 of 2Ot6 held that The Wal<f Board for reconstitution of the Towliath Committee shall take five .1 ;.. . lj.i,i,;::'.,.:::. : :, ij :..'i i i I i--- i.,:..: :..:

members ie. one Member from each branch of the Towliath Committee constituted uide proceedings dated 03.04. L993 irier alia Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri. Undisputedly, petitioner Syed Mohammed Mohiuddin Quadri is son of late Syed Ghodse Mohiuddin Quadri who died while he was President. Therefore, petitioner is, in normal cotlrse, to be appointed as President. However, the 3'd respondent Syed Zainul Abideen Hussaini Quadri S/o Syed Arifullah Hussaini, who is none other than grandson of late Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri (late Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri's daughter's son), Respondent No-3 was appointed as President by the impugned proceedings. To substantiate this, learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board, in their counter, urged that Articte 14 of the Constitution provides equality in all spheres of life and a son cannot enjoy preferential status as against a son of a daughter. l iO. Articie 14 of the Constitution provides equal treatment among equals. At the most, the Wakf Board can say that a son cannot have a preferential status against a daughter. But it is not correct to say that a son and. grandson i.e. son of da*ghter, are on the same platform having equal rights. son belongs to first branch whereas d.aughter's son is of next branch. Further, when son of a deceased. person is alive, t'

l4 daughter's son of the deceased person cannot tre said even as Legal Heir. Therefore, petitioner will definitely have preferential status orzer Respondent No.3 for appointment as President of the Towliath Committee of the Dargah in question. : 1 1. The other ground for not appointing petitioner as President of Towliath Committee is lodging of complaints against him. However, respondents failed to produce any material to show that if a complaint is received against any person, that person will be discarded from consideration to the post of F'resident of the Towliath Committee. \4ere receipt of complaint, in normal course, will not debar any person from consideration to appointment, unless the complaints are inquired i.nto and found to be true. L2. For the aforementioned discussion, the impugned .,,,,..Ead5.#fl,i'|.i'm..8$rfr\t|tl!.t.Q*!,.-..;.-t.'.*1,.'.',..''....j:.}.d4@*i4, proceedings dated 18.12.2024 issued by Respr:ndent No.2 Waqf Boeird appointing Respondents 3 to 9 as President and Members of Towliath Committee of Dargah Hazrath Imam Ali Shah R.l{. along with the attached properties situated at Balapur (V) RR District under Section 63 of the Waqf Act is set aside. The State Wakf Board is directed to reconstitute the Towliath Committee of Dargah Hazrath Imam .4.1i Shah R.H. along with the attached properties situated at Balapur (V) RR i .l I I1- I :lii li . tl .: . :--I ... Ii:,j " :.. .. ..

il ii ii ,] l5 District at the earliest by taking into consideration the claims of all the stake holders into account, in any case within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

14. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. S .P. PONNA ISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER at Secretariat

1. The Principal Secretary, [vlinority Hyderabad, State of Telangana. Departmen

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Wakf Board, Nampally, Haj House, Hyderabad, TS.

3. One CC to SRI ASHFAQ AHIUED, Advocate IOPUCI

4. One CC to SRI MOHD. ABDUL IVATTEN QURESHI, Advocate [oPUC]

5. One CC to SRI FARHAN AZAIVI KHAN, SC FOR WAQF BOARD [OPUC]

6. Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies To, BSR BS Y+

I HIGH COURT DATED:1211212025

ORDER

WP.No.31 48 of 2025 l. gTAl't: uJr' '[t6 CC TODAY * C),)

).u i DESPi ..! ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS co?qe/t I 1o ffir