The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 20-03-2024 passed in lA No. 1 of 2024 in CRP No. 939 of 2024 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. M MEHDI HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl. MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRl. MOHAMMED ISMAIL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{F YARA Civil Revision Petition No.939 of 2Oill Order: Hearcl Mr. M Mehcli Hussain, learned cc)r tnsel for the 1. petrtioners / respondent Nos 2 to 12, Mr' Mohc lslamuddin Ansari,learnedcounselforrespondentNo.l/app]i;antandMr. Mohammed lsmail, learned standing counsel fo respondent No.2. Perused the record ' This Civil Revision Petition is filed under

2. of Proviso of Wakf Act ol 1995 aggrieved by the ot'' the learned Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at O.A.No.7l ol 2023, dated O5'O2'2024' whete application filed. b1'' respondent No' 1 herein to Section 83(9) .er passed bY lyderabad in n, the said ;et aside the proceedings F-.No O'1lMDKlCl2OOT lZ-N ' datec issued by the CtrO constituting the Managing Cct Wakf Institution Dargah Hzt' F ateh Khan (RL Sanga Reddy Town i.e. respondent No 2 and revi:; herein, has been allowed setting aside the proct direction lo cond-uct elections within three mc't

27.O4.2023 rmittee of the ) situated at on petitioners edings with a Lths from the date of the order. 2

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred in the original application before the learned Tribun al.

1. The brief facts of the case are that Dargah Hzt. Fateh Khan (Rh) situated at Sanga Reddy District is a Wakf institution as per information published in Government Gazette No.48 A, dated 29.11.2001. Said Wakf institution which was under the care of the Management Committee and assumed into direct management of the Board. The trx President refused to hand over the charge of the Wakf institution to the Board. The Board vide Resolution No.990, dated 13.10.2020 has unanimously taken the Wakf institution under the direct management. The management n,as taken over from Managing Committee Board headed by Alhaj Ghulam Samdani under the proceedings i.e F.No.04/MDK|Cl 2OO7 lZ-IY, dated 27.O4.2023. It is alleged that vide the said proceedings, the respondent No.1 Board acted as Judge, Jury ald Bxecutioner.

5. Regulation 5 of the Managing Committee (constitution) Regulations 2009 contemplates that a Managing Comrnittee may be conslituted by approving the panel unanimously selected by Musallies ald certified by the Inspector Auditor of 3 the Boarcl, alternativel)', through election frotr among the Nrlr,r sallies of the Wakf Institution under the supervision of lt-rspcctor Auditor of the Board. '[: control and : respondent No.1 ignored suggestion of the Inspector Auditor br approving the panel constituting the Managing Committee ar d indulged in violation of regulations framed for the purpose of c rnstitution of Managing Committee. Some of the members of he Managing Committee constituted b1' the Board are tene nts of Wakf institution who attract disqualification as pcr Rt gulation 9 of Constitution ol Mar-rzrgir-rg Committee Rcgulation: i. e. Managing Committee is constitutcd lvith members who are rot eligib1e. It is pleaded that there is abuse of pou'er n'hile passing the proceeding and therefore, sald proceeding \\:as s() rght. to be set aside, by filing the Onginal Application.

6. In said Original Application, notice was rssued to the respondents and the matter u'as contested by resrl 'ondent Nos' 1 to B, 1O and I 1. Upon considering the case of bo h the parties, the Wakf Tribunal allowed the Original Appli<:r ition and set aside the proceeding in F.No.O4-MDK lC/2( 17 lZ' dated

27.O4.2O23 and directed the respondent No.1 Bcz rd to conduct I elections within three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 7 In grounds of revision, responclent Nos-2 to 12 it is pleaded that Wakf Board ts not a party to the Original Application but only the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is made as a party. The resolution taken by the Board with 2/3.,r majority is to be implemented by the CtrO who is under the administrative control of the Board. Since the Board is not arrayed AS a party, the Original Application is bad for mis joinder of parties under Order 1, Rule 9 of CPC. Further, the records of the Wakf Board were not called for passing the impugned order. The Wakf Board took a decision for constitution of committee by passing resolution No.242, dated

06.04.2023 and therefore, Wakf Board is a necessary party as per Section 23(3) and Section 26 of Wakf Act, 1995. There cannot be elections to the Dargah for constitution of Managing Committee as there were huge number of devotees from different parts of the State and Country and it is not possible to conduct elections though regulations permit the same. This fact was not considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned *order directing the Board to conduct elections within three f, months. Further, the applicant has no iocus standi the constitution of Managing Committee as thertr to c:hailenge is laiiure to cxplain the same ar-td saicl aspect \(ras not considet r d There is an erroneous conclusion b}'the: ' B. there are no circumstances prevaillng for ct': Managing Committec b1' the Wakf Board u'hen cr Committees b1' the Wakf Board in similar circl ribunal that rstitution of nstrtution of ms[ances in earlier tnstances were never challenged There i-' the part of the Tribunal to consider the discret vested in the Wakf Board under Regulation 23 violation on onallr po\.{,'er of \4anaging Committee and said power \vas exercised while crr rstituting the Managing Committee. Earlier Committees cot.t ;tituted vide proceedings datecl 18.04.2016 and 14 09'2O18 att I proceedrngs of CtrO dated 11.11.2O2O rvere not challenged' proceeding dated 27 .O4.2023 is challenged The present in Original Application u'ith a maiafide intention' There is 1n erroneous interpretation of the report of the Inspector Audit < r to the effect that the Board has to take necessary action an<l by exercising discretionary power, the Board constituted t Committee of the respondent Nos.2 to 12' Tl re Managing ere is 'uvrong of judgment reported in2023 (5) ALtt 811 TS u,'hich -application 6 was passed in a Writ Appeal No.B7B of 2023 rnhen facts of said case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view ol the aforementioned, the impugned order sought to be set aside.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 1 2 / revision petitioners submitted that there is a glaring error in the manner of filing of the Original Application as Telangana Wakf Board u'as not made as a part). though the proceeding of said Board u'as impugned in the Original Application. It is urged that u'ithout the Wakf Board being a partlr to the proceedings, the Original Application is not maintainable. Further, the CEO of the Board is made as a party and said paity is under the control of the Board for implementation of the resolutions passed by the Board. The CtrO has no independent role in passing the resolutions or constituting the Committees. Therefore, arraying the CEO as a party to the Original Application amounts to mis joinder of party. On the aforementioned grounds itself, the Original Applicable is not maintainable. Further, the locus standi of the applicant to file the Original Application is questioned alleging that there is no 1 description about the ground for' the applicant to c r allenge the proceeding issuccl bY the Roard'

10. Refernng to the order of the Tribunal, ir r: represented that the directiorts of the Tribunal to conduct eler be implemented as lt is difficult to identily t t devotees of the Dargah etc. from the local inhabitat is a chance to breach the peace in the vicinitr conciucting thc elections. Further, the Board ht'r Managing Corrmittees vide proceedings dated l4.Og.2O1B ancl 1l.Il.2O2O- Horn'ever, in such i challenge was posed by the applicant or any ot Only u,hen present Managing Committee w'as (( harabs the mcmbers and to prevent them froll smoothl',', the Original Application is filed' Theref I that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous ,rons cannot e. Zaireens f t s ar-rd there , rn case ol con stituted 1 8.0.+.2016, r s Lance s, no rer member. nstlluted, to fur-rctioning -e, it is urged and liable to be set asicle.

11. The learned standing counsel for responde nt No.1 Chief Executive Officer supported the arguments of resl ondent Nos.2 to 12. 8

12. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Telangana State Wakf Board is represented by respondent No.1 Chief trxecutive Olficer arrd therefore, there is no issue of either non-joinder of parties or mis-joir-rder of parties. Further, it is contended that in violation of the Regulation 5 of the Managing Committee (constitution) Regulations 20O9 and in violation of the report of the Inspector Auditor, the Boarcl has arbitrarily constituted the Managing Committee r,r'hen there are two more panels aspiring to be appointed as the Managir-rg Committee. It is argued that no opportur-rity u'as given to the remaining panels for being constituted as Managing committee on account of Board taking direct management and passing orders for copstituting a new Managing Committee. Further, it is argued that some of the members are tenalts of the shops run within the premises of Dargah and therefore, they are disqualified from being appointed as members of the Managing Committee. In view of the above infirmities, the Tribunal has passed an appropriate order setting aside the proceedings dated 27.O4.2O23. \ 13. Firstly, the learned counsei for respondent Nos.2 to 12/revision petitioners raised question about the 9 C. In vier"' of lor the CtrO application maintainability of the original application withou 1 lraking the wakf Boarcl as a necessarl,r partv when the procec'c ings issued bv the Wakf Board is rmpugned before the Triburr: ' The Chiel Executive Officer of the Board is a person who ac1; under the directions and suPervtston of the Board with no ndePendent nrited to the eruthoritt' to makc ar-rv decision' The CEO's role is i extent of implernet-rting decisions taken by the Bo::t this fact situatron, it is submitted that the origi:r t is bad for mis joinder of parties as there is no nec l being made a party and the Board is a necessarlr l aspect, rvhen this Court questioned the learne'l respQndent Nos.2 to 12 about whether or not he t r Roard. the categorrcal answer was that he act s behest of the Board i.e he has filed counter before lvith the approval of the Board and is also currett before this Court only at the behest of the Boar'l counsei represet-rted that the CEO is a repres( l Board ancl therefore, there is no issue about non t of the Board. Srnce the CEO is representing tll Court is incline d to accept the version of the res 1 to 12 lhat the Boarcl is sufficiently represented bi rrty. On this presents the counsel for only at the the Tribunal .1y contestlng The learned Ltative of the :presentation : Board, this ondent Nos.2 the CEO and :: I():: t there is no issue about the mis-joinder or non-joinder of all parties

14. The lacts of the case as rlarrated br. both the parties show that Dargah Hzt. Fateh Khan (RI{) is a Wak[ institution as per Government Gazette No.48 A, dated 29.11.200 I The Wakf institutions include i) Mosque, ii) Ashoorkhana, iii) Alau,ajaat/ Ashoorkhana lBargah, iv) Chilla/ Sarai/ Chilla Nishan, v) Dargah, vi) Ikamath Khara (Hostel), vii) Idgah, viii) Khaberstan includes Takia, ix) Maqbera, x) Musafir Khana, xi) Nabi Khana Imambara, etc. The aforementioned list includes Dargah rvhich is subject matter of the present dispute. No doubt, vide proceedings dated lA.04.2016 and 14.09.2018, Managing Committees were constituted by the Teiangana Wakf Board through direct management and said proceedings were never challenged by any party. It is not knou,n whether said Committees constituted were unanimous or there were proposals by other committees and therefore, the appropriateness or validity of the said proceedings cannot be examined herein i 5. Currently, the validity of the proceeding dated

27.O4.2023 is in question before tl-re Tribunal. The Tribunal has ::ll:: perused thc repclrt of the Inspector Auditor riatec rvhich shotvs that there r'r'ere four panels requesting constitutecl as N{anaging Committee of Dargah Hazt Saheb (Rh). Since there were four panels as : constituted as Managing Committee, the Insp( ( proposecl <:onducl ol e lections as per G'O Ms \ l2O. 1 I .200q. Further, the Tribunal has noted that t about tenanls being some of the members of t 1 Committee which is impermissible as per Reguii-' Mar-raging committee (Constitution) Regulatiot-tr; Board has deliberateh' chosen to distinguish ri dated 20. I 1.2009 as applicable only to Masjids said G.O is applicable to \Vakf institutions and pr:

19.09.2020 Lhe m to be F ateh i(han ring to be tor Auditor o.7;1, dated rere is issue e lr4anaging ion 9 of the T1-re Wakf O.Ms.No.74, r'vhereas the certies'. The sr-rbject matter of the present disprr i6. Hazt Fateh Khan Saheb (Rh) which is a Wati Therefore, the G.O.Ms N o'74 rs applicable to the institution i.e. Dargah. Only for the purpose of < the report of the Inspector Auditor, a hctitious created between Masjiti and Dargah though both under the Wakf institutions and the Board has r: present Mal'raging Committee vide proc l -e is Dargah I institution. rresent Wakf ircumventing Cistinction rs rf them come rnstituted the :ding dated ..tr.. r..

27.O4.2023. The Tribunal has given a specific finding that nhen there is only one panel applving for constitution of the Managing Committee, the Boarcl can unanimou sly proceed to appornt the same. Hou,ever, u,hen there are more than one application from different palels for colr stitution of Managing Committee i.e. when there is no unarimous panel, the only option available is to conduct elections. The Board cannot shrrk its responsibiiitv to conduct elections on the ground of practicabili ty of the process of conducting elections.

17. The G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 20.It.2OOg proposes to conduct elections for Wakf institutions whenever it is necessary. Therefore, the Wakf board has the responsibility to design and streamline process for conducting elections rather than shirking the same on the imagined ground of difficulty in identifying the Ziareens/devotees of Dargah. F-urther, 'vhen a complaint is made that some of the members are tenants running shops in the prenises of Dargah, said issue has to be taken up by the Board seriously to ascertain whether there is violation of Regulation 9 of the Managing Committee (Constitution) Regulations, constituting the Managing Committee. No purpose will be sen ed by brushing aside the 1n :: l3:: allegations without coming up with concrete evidence to support their ori'n stand.

18. The Board represented by CtrO in th,- absence ol concrete evidence of non-violation of Regulatlr r-r 9 of the Managrng Committcc (Constitution) RegulatiorL; and non applicabilit.r. oI G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 20.ll.))O9 cannot support the con stitutiou of Managing Comm i -tee without elections. Therelore, this Court does not see ar y ground to interlerc q,ith thc order passed b-v the Tribunal , Lrrd the Civil Revisior-r Pctition lacks merits and the same ir; liable to be dismis sed

19. Accordrngly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order passed in O-A.No.71 of 2O23, dated O5.O2 .2024 b1' the learned Telangana State Wa.l< Tribunal at Hyderabad Pending miscellaneous applications, if ant , sha1l stand closed. No costs Sd/. U. SUDHA S TANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// I ;ECTION OFFICER To, PK w TheChiefExecutiveofficer,TelanganaStateWaqfBoa.tofficeatHaij House,NamPallY, HYderabad I 2 o;; ae L 3nr. u'rtreHor HUSSAIN Advocate [oPUC] 3. o;; Ca io snr uOuo ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Advocal; OPUCI ;. o;; aa io sRl tr4oHAMMED ISMAIL Advocate [oPUCl 5. Two CD CoPies i E-,-.dE;.a--sHE HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ORDER CRP.No.939 of 2024 l. iIlE S iA ( )l Y o() t I JAN 2026 * t\, f :-;t r"-.1' ,/ DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PEITITION. a- lt cd?'- q W--<,,vL '\a.'