Writ Petition No. 25418 of 2001 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

The petitioner is the Mutawalli of Chow Mosque, situated at Nandyal Town. It was notified as Wakf, at serial No.3402, in the A.P. Gazette, dated 24.10.1963. On receiving certain complaints against the petitioner, the A.P. Wakf Board ordered an enquiry by appointing its Law Officer as an Enquiry Officer, on 18.04.1998. A detailed enquiry was conducted, and a report, dated 03.02.2001, was submitted. The report was placed before the Wakf Board, at its meeting held on 07.04.2001. The recommendations contained in the report were accepted and the petitioner was exonerated of charges, even while directing certain steps as indicated in the report. It appears that the complainants have approached the Government of A.P., in its Minority Welfare Department, the 3rd respondent. The latter issued a memo, dated 02.06.2001, directing the resolution, dated

07.04.2001, passed by the Wakf Board, in relation to the petitioner, be kept in abeyance, and that the matter be further enquired into by the District Revenue Officer. The District Collector, Kurnool, was directed to entrust the matter to District Revenue Officer and to send the enquiry report to the Government within a fortnight, for necessary action. The petitioner challenges the said memo. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to keep the resolution passed by the Wakf Board in abeyance and that neither the District Collector, nor the District Revenue Officer, has any jurisdiction to conduct enquiry. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents.

Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’), deals with the recognition and administration of wakfs, including the appointment of Mutawallis and the matters relating thereto. Section 70 of the Act confers power upon the Wakf Board to cause enquiry into the administration of any wakf. It is in exercise of this power that the Wakf Board appointed an Enquiry Officer, and ultimately, passed a resolution, dated 07.04.2001, in relation to the petitioner. If any one was aggrieved by that, proceedings ought to have been initiated, either before the Wakf Tribunal, constituted under Section 83 of the Act, or before any other forum. The matter was taken before the 3rd respondent by Sri S.A.Khader and others, through representation, dated

09.04.2001. Acting on the same, the 3rd respondent places the resolution, dated 07.04.2001, passed by the Wakf Board, in abeyance. Further, the enquiry was ordered through the District Revenue Officer. The impugned memo suffers from two serious infirmities. The first is that the petitioner was not put on notice, before the resolution was kept in abeyance. Since valuable rights have accrued to the petitioner on account of the resolution, he was entitled to be issued notice before it was kept in abeyance. Non-issuance of notice to the petitioner amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The second is that nowhere in the Act the State Government is conferred with the power to overrule or otherwise meddle with the resolution passed by the Wakf Board. Apart from the power to make Rules, the 3rd respondent is conferred with the power to issue certain directions under Section 97 of the Act. The impugned memo does not amount to issuance of general directions. Viewed from any angle, it cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned memo, dated 02.06.2001, is set aside. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.10.03.2010. GJ