The High Court · 2025

2. sri. Tafseer lqbar, rPS. principar Secretary, Minority werfare Deoartment. State of Telangana. Secretariat, Hyderabid _ SOOCi22.

3. SrL Shaik Liyakat Hussain-,.S/o Shaik Hussain, Age: 55 years, Authorised uttrcer, tetangana State {aqf Bgq!, RazzakManzil, Hil House, Opp: public Garden, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001. +. 9Vg9 Azmatullah Hussain Chairman, Telangana State Waqf Board, office at Haj House Building, Nampalty, Hyderabad _3OO OOt. ...Respondents/Respondents in CC. 1 9 1 1 ol 2024 Petition under order 1 Rure 'r0 r/w section i 51 c.p.c. praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, trJ Hign court pleased to implead the petitioner herein as proposed respondenti no.4 in T?y 9e cc.No.1911 oI 2024 in wp No.27418 of 20'rB as weil as in the connected lnterlocutory Applications in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner in CC.No.1911 ot 2024 and Respondent No.1 in l.A.No.3 ol 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner in l.A.No.3 oI 2024 : M/s. Bharadwaj Associates : M/s. Mohd. Afzaluddin Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 in l.A.No.3 ot 2O24 : M/s. Mohammed Abdul euadeer Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 3 and Respondents No.3 & 4 in l.A.No.3 ol 2024 : Sri Farhan Azam Khan The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA I.A.No. 3 of 2024 AND CONTEMPT CASE No. LgII OF 2024 ORDER: Complaining wilful disobedience of the order dated

28.02.2024 in Writ Petition No. 27418 of 2023, petitioner, who is a third party, {iled this Contempt Case.

2. By the order under contempt, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition, however, directing the lst respondent to take into consideration Resolution dated 01.12.2022 and appoint a full-time CEO within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It is observed therein that pursuant to the order dated 04.11.2022, the Board had proposed the names of two individuals and requested the Government to appoint full-time CEO under Section 23 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short, 'the ActJ and as they did not show any interest to appoint a CEO, the 3.d respondent in the Writ Petition was appointed as in-charge CEO and the same cannot be said to be in contravention of Section 23.

3. Petitioner herein who claims to be an interested person / aggrieved person states that Writ Petition was also frled by a person interested who is now maintaining lull in the matter I u l 7 for unknown reasons. It is his grievance that about seven months elapsed after passing the order under contempt, but however, the 1"t respondent did not appoint a Full time Chief Executive Ofhcer to Telangana State Waqf Board and instead, the 1.t respondent appointed an Authorised Officer (non- statutory appointment) to manage the affairs of the Waqf Board which is resulting in huge loss torthe valuable waqf properties.

4. The Chief Executive Oflicer, Telangana State Waqf Board frled counter-affidavit stating that petitioner is not a party to the Writ Petition but hled the Contempt Case and he has no locus to treat himself as an 'interested person' and to file the Contempt Case. It is stated that the Government of Telangana issued G.O.Rt.No. 1167, dated 31.O8.2O24 appointing Md. Asadullah, Special Grade Deput5r Collector, HMDA as Chief Executive Ofhcer, Waqf Board and on the same day, he assumed charge; Shaik Liyakat Hussain, Assista.nt Secretary to Government was relieved as per G.O.Rt.No.72, dated 12.09.2024. It is stated that they came to know that Writ petitioner frled implead petition and that petitioner herein, with an intention to harass the officials of the Waqf Board and to gain illegally and cause wrongful loss to the waqf Board and to 3 t}.e established functions of the waqf Board, filed the present Contempt Case.

5. The Chief Executive Officer also Iiled the additional counter reiterating the averments of the earlier counter. It is stated that since the State Government had already appointed Md. Asadullah as permanent Chief Executive Offrcer who has required qualilications mandated:under Section 23 of the Act, the government has complied with the orders of this Court. It is stated further that the order under contempt was passed on

28.02.2024 directing the lst respondent to appoint a full time CEO within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order ald tlre period though was completed by the first week of July 2024, due to contingent circumstances and administrative procedures, delay of two months took place which is beyond the control of the answering respondent.

6. The Chief Executive Officer hled another additional counter stating that the incumbent rendered thirty five years of government; now, has been working as Special Grade Deput5r Collector and for October 2O24 he has drawn basic pay Rs.1,15,270l- apart from DA, HRA, CCA, IR, TI, OA, and other benefits which comes to Rs.1,77,803/- towards net salary. It is also stated that the incumbent previously discharged functions 1 as the Chief Executive officer of the Waqf Board on deputation and had been holding the cadre of Deputy Collector, during the interregnum period, had been on deputalion to General Administration Department posted as Private Secretar5r to the then Deputy Chief Minister and thereafter, Personal Secretary to Hon'ble Home Minster. Subsequently, he was posted as Additional Collector (Revenue), W&raparthy and then to HMDA. 7 . The 3.d additional counter was also filed wherein, the judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in Sri Shannsud.dtn u. Sri .Elarls M Y (lLR 2017 KAR 663) was cited. In the said judgment, it has been held that it is a settled position of law that power conferred on a High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to punish for contempt of Court must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of the Act, petition to initiate action for civil contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act can be presented only by a party aggrieved, except where the Court which passed the order has given liberty to third parties, who are not parties to the order, to initiate action for contempt of court. It is further held that Section 14 of the Act relates to procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court 5 ,' or a High Court and Section 15 of the Act relates to procedure in the case of a criminal contempt, there are exceptions to the rule of loans .standi relating to civil contempt stated above. The complainant is not a party to the order in his personal capacity. As the complainant has presented this petition in his personal capacity and in his personal name, and not as administrator of Masjid, he cannot be said to be a lparty aggrieved. It is relevant to state that, in the order, no liberty is given to any third party to initiate action for contempt of Court. Hence, the petition as brought is not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed. It is further stated that the 1st respondent is not liable for having committed any order as now being erroneously harped upon by the leave petitioner being third part5r who does not have any locus whatsoever. It is also stated that as per the minutes of the 9e Board Meeting held on 26.10.2024 conducted in the chambers of the Hon'ble Chairman, Telangana Waqf Board, they unanimously considered the agenda as item No.2 and passed Resolution No. 483 dated 26.1O.2024, ir order to facilitate the exercise of statutory duties under Section 25 of the Act, the incumbent Mr. M Asadullah was appointed as the Chief Executive Of{icer being competent to hold the statutory post r 6 under Section 23 of the Act read with Rule 43 of t}le Telangana State Waqf Rules, 2022 has already been ratifred by the Waqf Board. The Chairmaa who has also been erroneously arrayed as the 3.a respondent by the leave petitioner herein, is not liable for having committed any contempt as being the collective decision of the Board.

8. Heard learned Advocpte General on behalf of the l"t respondent. According to him, this Contempt Case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as there is no wilful disobedience of the order dated 28.02.2024. lt is submitted that Writ Petition was filed questioning the appointment of t}re 3.d respondent therein as in-charge Chief Executive OIIicer of the Waqf Board by issuing G.O.Rt.No. 13, dated 19.01.2O23 and continuing him as such without appointing the full-time Chief Executive Oflicer as contemplated under Section 23 of t1le Act. l,earned Advocate General submits that in the meeting of the Board held on 07.12.2O22 in the chambers of Hon,ble Chairperson, Telangana State Waqf Board, it was resolved that in compliance with the order in Writ petition No. 4O04S of 2022, the names of Mr. Mohammed Abdul Hameed, Special Grade Deputy Director and Sri M.A.Mannan Farooqui, Joint Secretary / Additional Secretary, t aw Depa_rtment were proposed with a 7 request to government to appoint full-time CEO under Section 23 of the Act, however, the above two candidates could not be appointed as one of them superannuated and the otler declined the position. In view of the same, it is contended that the lst respondent has not committed any act of wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order passe& by this Court. 9, From the above, the case of respondents, as could be culled out, is two-fold: 1) there is no violation of the procedure stipulated in Seclion 23 of the Act in appointing CEO to the Waqf Board; and 2) petitioner being a third part5r is not entitled to hle the Contempt Case.

10. As regards the competence of petitioner to file Contempt Case is concerned, Iearned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venakta Ramana appearing on behalf of learned counsei for petitioner submits that it is settled legal proposition that contempt proceedings were intended to ensure compliance with the orders of the Court and adherence to tlte rule of law, hence, contempt proceedings can be initiated by any aggrieved person. Further, in Girish lylittal t). Pdntati V. Sundarann t, the Hon'ble Supreme court at para 15, held as under: t lzotsS zo scc ttt 8 '

15. we do not agree with Mr Gupta th.at a @ntetq't petitian is nuintainable orLlg at tl@ betLesl of o partg to tle judqnent The dircdion's issued bA this e Coutt are general in nahlre and atg uiolation of sudt diections unuld enable an aggrteued pdng b file a centenpt petition ' The Supreme Court had observed that when the directions issued in a judgment €rre general in nature, any aggt'ieved party (not just the party to tJle judgment), can Iile a Contempt petition when there is violation of such directions. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is of

11. the view that since the directions issued in Writ Petition are ,T general in nature, petitioner, though not a party to the order under contempt, can be said to be al "ggrieved person / interested person to hle the Contempt Case.

12. As regards the contention that Section 23 of the Act is violated in appointing Mr. Asadullah as CEO is concerned, learned Senior Counsel Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy appearing on behalf of the Waqf Board submits that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the Writ Petition, government issued G.O. Rt.No. 1167, dated 31.08.2024 allocating Mr. Md' Asadullah, Special Grade Deputy Collector, HMDA and consequently, G.O.Rt.No. 72, dated 12.09.2024 was issued by the l"t respondent relieving Sri Liyaquath Hussain, Assistant Secretary to Government from the post of Authorised OfIicer, 9 Telangana Waqf Board with immediate effect. Here, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana argues that the said appointment was not in accordance with Section 23 of the Act and further, it is their case that the so- called CEO Sri Md. Asadullah had been removed from the post of CEO by the Waqf Board in its first Board Resolution meeting held in February 2Ol7 and was repatriated to his parent department due to the acts committed by him in the absence of elected Board resulted in huge loss to the waqfs, hence, the same officer cannot again be posted to such department. It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel that now-elected I CEO Asadullah is an officer of Special Grade Deputy Collector rank and as per G.O.Ms.No. 51, dated I t.O6.2O21, the said officer is holding the rank of Special Grade Deput5r Collector which is below the rank of Deputy Secretary to Government, hence, the appointment of Md. Asadullah as full-time CEO to t Waqf Board clearly violates Section 23.

13. In this context, it is appropriate to extract Section 23, which reads thus: "

23. &rpolntment of Chtef Executt E O.tfice,. dnd. hts tenn of olfice and other condlttons ol servtce.- (1) There sh€ll be a full-time Chief Executive Oltrcer of t}re Board who shall be a Muslim ald shall be appointed by the State Governmeo! by notification in the Ofiicial Gazette, from a panel of two names suggested by the Board 10 and who shall not be below the rank of Deputy Secretary to tfie State Government, and in case of non-availabitity of a Muslim ofltcer of t}Iat rank, a Muslim oflicer of equivalent rank may be appointed on deputation. l2J The term of oIfice and other conditions of service of the Chief Executive Officer shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) The Chiel Executive Officer shall be ex oflicio Secretary of t}te Board and shall be under the administrative control of the Board.

14. Admittedly, Mr. Asadullah is a Special Grade Deputy Collector which is below the rank of Deputy Secretary to government and his appointment is not in conformity with Section 23 of the Act. However, Respondent No.1 counters this saying that in view of shortage of Muslim officers available, the Waqf Board ratified appointment of the incumbent Mr. Md. Asadullah as the CEO, who rendered 35 years of government service. The Waqf Board had expressed dissatisfaction and passed Resolution in February 2OI7 rerJ]ovir.g Mr. Mohammed Asadullah from the position of Chief Execulive Oflicer and repatriated him to his parent department, as such, again appointing him in the same post is not in accordance with law, hence, he shall not be entitled to be continued as such. This Court therefore, is of the opinion that Md. Asadullah be removed from the post of full time Chief Executive Officer with immediate effect. There is no such G.O. issued by the Minority Welfare Department regarding appointment of Mohd. Asadullah. While temporary arrangement of the 2od respondent Sri Shaik 1l Liyakat Husain as in--charge Chief Executive Officer to Waqf Board does not result in violation of Section 23 of the Act which provision, admittedly, would come into play only with regard to appointment of a fuI1-time Chief Executive Officer, but not to temporary arrangement, he be continued as Chief Executive Officer, in the interregnum.

15. The Contempt Case is therefore, disposed of in terms of the order in Writ Petition No. 27418 of 2023. Respondents are directed to appoint a fult-time Chief Executive Officer within a period of four months from today duly complying with Section 23 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

16. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any I I shall stand closed. I.A.No. 3 of 2024

17. This Application has been taken out by the writ petitioner to implead him as the 4e respondent to the contempt case. The case put-forward by him is that he being the main petitioner who filed the Writ Petition is the person-interested, however, he was not made necessary party deliberately.

18. To the said Application, petitioner in Contempt Case hled counter stating that writ petitioner has not been pursuing the cause and has been obstructing administration of t2 justice on extraneous reasons and he is neither necessary nor proper party to the Contempt Case. It is stated that he has Iocus stondi to maintain the Contempt Case.

19. In view of the reasons stated with regard to the competence of petitioner to hle the Contempt Case, in the preceding paragraphs, ttris Court feels that writ petitioner is not necessary party for adjudication of this Contempt Case.

20. The Application is accordingly, dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. MANJULA DEPUW REGISTRAR .il S ON OFFICER

1. Sri. Tafseer lqbal, lPS, Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare Depa(ment, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad - SOOO22.

2. Sri. Shaik Liyakat Hussain, S/o. Shaik Hussain, Age. 55 years, Authorised Officer, Telangana State Waqf Board, Razzak Manzil, Haj House, Opp: public Garden, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001.

3. Syed Azmatullah Hussain, Chairman, Telangana State Waqf Board, office at \ To, I I Haj House Building, Nampally, Hyderabad - SO0 001. 4. One CC to M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to M/s. Mohammed Abdul euadeer, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Farhan Azam Khan, Advocate tOpUCl 7. One CC to M/s. Mohd. Afzaluddin, Advocate [OpUC 8. Two CD Copies **w HIGH COURT DATED:10lUnAzS ORDER l.A.No.3 of 2024 AND CC.No.1911 of 2024 EH'i T4 )e o^ 2 7 JAil 20fi l-" ct, ./-.1 a ,-.{ o * DISMISSING THE I.A & THIS CONTEMPT CASE IS DISPOSED OF. I I i