The High Court · 2025

Counsel for Appellant : SRI SAINI ARAVIND Counsel for Respondent No.1 : SRI RAMACHANDAR RAO V:MUGANTI Counsel for Respondent No.2 : G.P FOR SOCIAL WELFAFE, ADDL ADV GEN Counsel for Respondent No.3 : SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT : - 'i:t/1W/ ----rr-- ..: : *:... ./ .^.-..1.-!,3'Y' / i i . I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY I.A.No.3 OF 2025 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL No. 860 OF 2025 COMMON JUDGMENTT (per Hon'bte Si Justice Vakiti Ramc,kishna Reddgl The present Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated

05.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in LA.No.7 of 2025 in W.P.No.22692 of 2025, wltereby the Interlocutory Application seeking the remova,l of the appellant from the post of the Chief Executive Ofhcer (CEO), Telangana State Waqf Board, was allowed as prayed for.

2. Having considered the pleadings, grounds of appeal, ald oral submissions, it is evident that the order impugned, although passed in an Interlocutory Application, has resulted in the frnal disposal and granting of the main relief sought in the writ petition.

3. It is trite law that an Interlocutory Application in the nature of seeking main relief cannot be hnally disposed of without due 2 \.i,..-&.' adjudication on merits of the main petition, rn{)re so, without affording an opportunity of hearing to ail the partir:sr concerned

4. The record demonstrates that the impugned c'der was passed without granting the appellalt an effective oppo'trrnity to present their case, which constitutes a clear violatiort tf principles of natural justice. The maxim 'audi alteram partettl .s required to be strictly followed, especialiy when such directions L:ave the effect of ending the employment arld prejudicially affectirrg the statutory rights and status of the appellant

5. Additionally, it is brought to the notice of tbc Bench that the appointment of the appeilalt as CEO was made orr deputation for a period of one year, and the said term as per 1.he appointment order/G.O. has already expired on 11.09.2025, l'hus, no further directions in respect of the impugned appointmer t of the CEO post are warranted at this stage.

6. During the pendency of the present app(a, G.O.Rt.No.67, dated 12.08.2025 was issued by respondent Nc.l,-Government of Telangana, repatriating the appellant to his paren.. :lepartment. r:W r:i - I I i 3

7. I.A.No.3 of 2025 is flled by the appellant to stay further proceedings including operation of G.O.Rt'No '67, dated 12'Oa'2O25 In view of the above, we lind that the procedure adopted by the 8 learned singie Judge is unsustainable in law. The order dated 05.08.2025 in I.A.No. I of 2025 in W'P'No'22692 of 2025 is accordingly set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Single Judgeforfreshconsiderationanddisposalinaccordancewithlaw after providing an opportunity to all parties, keeping in view t1.e expiryoftheCEo,stermandtherequirementforappointmentofa regular CEO as per Section 23 of the Waqf Act, 1995' g.ItisbroughttothenoticeofthisCourtthattheGovernment issued G.o.Rt.No.67, dated 12.o8.2025, wherein the appellant was repatriated to his parent department' Hence, this Court is of the view that the said Government Order repatriating the appellant to his parent department is Iiable to be suspended pending the disposal of the writ petition by the learned Singte Judge and accordingly, the G.O.Rt.No.67, dated 12'Oa'2O25 is set aside' \ffi \') ...-'.lFEpi ._ - rs,_-1?. ,\ ._*'-_-;i q 4

10. The learned Single Judge shall endeavor to rlecide the matter afresh, uninfluenced by any of the observations rrLade herein, after hearing all interested parties

11. With the above observations/directions, til Writ Appeal and I.A.No.3 of 2025 are allowed. There shall be no ,-:r, ier as to costs. As a sequel. pending miscellaneous applicatir,ns, if any, in this Appeal shall a-lso stald closed. //TRUE COPY// SATYAVATHI REGISTRAR p/- B. \l*' \ ECTION OFFICER r! Hal House, Opp of Telangana at Hyderabad. Telanoana at Hvderabad. (OUT) Public Garden, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana sCrC c:)1

1. The Principal Secretary, Ir/inority Welfare-Waqf Depar'nrent Secretary State 2 The CEd, Telangina State Waqf Board, Razzak Man 3. Two CC's to G.P FOR SbCiAL WELFARE, High Cotr )r the State of a fne S"eCtion Officer. Writ Non-Sbrvice Section, HIgh . r '1 for the State of S fwo iCs to ADDL ADV GENERAL , High Court for t-r: iitate of Telangana' 6 bne CC to SRI SAINI ARAVIND. Advocate [OPUC] 7 On" CC to SRI RAMACHANDAR RAO VEfilUGANTI A:Lvocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN, Advocate [CF'L J] 9. Two CD Copies Telanqana, at Hvderabad. ' To SA GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 r f: 5Ii15 o (. ( 0r1 zffi -z * -a\ -, + l_ COMMON JUDGMENT t.A.NO.3 0F 2025 IN/AND WA.No.860 of 2025 ALLOWING BOTH THE I.A AND W.A WITHOUT GOSTS. t0\r t