Syed Ansar v. Officer, Haji Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 18 Jun 2004
- Bench
- S ANANDA REDDY
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Wakf Act, 1995 ss. 18, 64
Judgment
Cause title
Between: Syed Ansar, S/o Ibrahim Saheb, R/o Jayaram Rao Street, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The A.P.State Wakf Board, Hyderabad rep.by his Chief Executive Officer, Haji Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 S.Mirzan Saheb, R/o K.S.Street, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 S.A.Rasheed, S/o Razzaq Hussain, R/o Dargah Street, Panagal, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent herein bearing No.2/CTR/K/2004 dated 4-3-2004 in respect of the Wakf Property, Dargah Hazarath Jumele Peer Shah & Dada Peer and graveyard in Sy.No.224/8 with an extent of 0.94 cents and Mosque Azam in Sy.No.224/7 with an extent of 0.22 cents at Dargah MOH of Ponagal (V), Mandal Srikalahasti, Chittoor District constituting of the respondents 2 and 3 herein and 9 members are illegal, arbitrary, capricious, malafide, and violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to record and Sections 18 and 64 of the Wakf Act of 1995 For the Petitioner: Mr.M.T.GHORI, Advocate For the Respondents: MR.S.M.SUBHANI, Standing Counsel For A.P. State Wakf Board The Court made the following
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the proceedings of the first respondent dated 04.03.2004 under which the respondents 2 and 3 along with nine others were appointed as members of the Managing Committee of the first respondent, A.P. State Wakf Board.
According to the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 are not eligible to be appointed as such, and therefore sought for quashing of the proceedings to the extent of appointment of respondents 2 and 3, as, such appointment is not only illegal, arbitrary, capricious and mala fide but also violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to Sections 18 and 64 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’).
At the time of hearing, however, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent stated that there is an effective alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 83(2) of the Act.
When once the petitioner has got an effective remedy of appeal and representation before the Tribunal constituted under the said provision, this Court, without going into the merits and the contentions advanced, declines to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal or representation under Section 83(2) of the Act.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER
18.06.2004 To 1 The Chief Executive Officer, A.P.State Wakf Board, Haji Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.
2. 2 CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Wakf Act, 1995 — ss. 18, 64.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 18 Jun 2004. The bench was S ANANDA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.