Writ Petition No. 6637 of 2009 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- L NARASIMHA REDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first
Provisions considered
Judgment
The petitioners submitted applications in the year 2006 with a request to recognize them as Muthawallies for Dargah of
Hazrath Mohd. Madina Aulia, Kalingapatnam, Srikakulam District. It is stated that acting on the representations made by the petitioners, the A.P. State Wakf Board, the first respondent herein, caused enquiry through Inspector Auditor, the second respondent herein, and in fact, a report was submitted on
Operative part
22.10.2008. The grievance of the petitioners is that the matter has not been finalized as yet and in the meanwhile, the administration of Dargah is suffering. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board. The Wakf Act, 1995 and the Rules made thereunder prescribe the procedure for appointment of Muthawallies, particularly in the matters where the appointment is not provided for under the Wakfnama. Acting on the representations made by the petitioners, the first respondent has already taken steps and an enquiry report has been submitted by the second respondent. Though the matter needs to be examined from various angles, it cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to finalize the matter in relation to recognition of Muthawallies for Dargah of Hazrath Mohd. Madina Aulia, Kalingapatnam, Srikakulam District, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ REDDY,J Dt:31.03.2009 L.NARASIMHA
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board. The Wakf Act, 1995.
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.