The High Court · 2026

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKF YARA Civil Revision Petition No .939 of 2O1'. I Order: Hearcl Mr. M. Mehdi Hussatn, learned cc)r tnsel for the 1. petitioners / respondent Nos 2 to 12, Mr' Mohc [slamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for respondent No'1/appli;ant and Mr' Mohammedlsmaii,Iearnedstandingcounselft>respondent No.2. Peru sed the rccord' This Civil Revision Petition is filed under

2. of Proviso ol Wakf Act ol 1995 aggrieved by the ot'' the learned Telangana State Wakf Tribunal at O.A.No.71 ol 2023, clated O5'O2'2O24' where application filcd b1' respondent No 1 herein to proceedings F.No.04lMDKI Cl2OO7 lZ-N' datec issued by the CtrO constituting the Managing Cct Wakl Institution Dargah Hzt Fateh Khan (Rt Sanga Reddy Town i.e. respondent No'2 and revir; herein, has been allowed setting aside the proct direction to conduct elections within three mtr Section 83(9) ier passed bY Iyderabad in .n, the said ;et aside the

27.O4.2023 rmittee of the ) situated at on petitioners edings with a rths from the date of the order. . 2

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred in the original application before the learncd Tribunal

4. The brief facts of the case are that Dargah Hzt. Fateh Khan (Rh) situated at Sanga Reddy District is a Wakf institution as per information published in Government Gazette No.48 A, dated 29. 1 1.2001 . Said Wakf institution which rvas under the care of the Management Committee and assumed into direct management ol the Board. The trx President refused to hand over the charge of the Wakf institution to the Board. The Board vide Resolution No.990, dated 13.10.2O2O has unanimously taken the Wakf institution under the direct management. The management r.r,as taken over from Managing Committee Board headed by Alhaj Ghulam Samdani under the proceedings i.e F.No.04lMDK|Cl 2OO7 lZ-IY, dated 27.O4.2023. It is alleged that vide the said proceedings, the respondent No.1 Board acted as Judge, Jury ald Executioner

5. Regulation 5 of the Managing Committee (constitution) Regulations 2009 contemplates that a Managing Comrnittee may be constituted by approving the panel unanimously selected by Musallies and certified by the Inspector Auditor ol 3 the Board, alternativeLy, through election frorr among the Musallies of the Wakf Institution under Lhe supervision of Inspector Auditor of the Board - 'l : control ald : respondent No.1 ignored suggestion of the Inspector Auditor br approving the panel constituting the Managing Committee ar d indulged in violation of regulations framed for the purpose of c rnstitution of Managing Committee. Some of the members of he Managing Committee constituted by the Board are ten z nts of Wakf institution \,,!'h o attract disqualification as per Ri gulation 9 of Constitution ol Managing Committee Regulatio n s ,. e. Managing Committee is constituted u'ith members who are rot eligib1e. It is pleaded that thcre is abuse of power rn'hiie passing the proceeding and therelore, said proceeding \\ras s() rght to be set aside, by filing the Original Application. 6 . In said Original Application, notice was Lssued to the respondents and the matter $'as contested by res;] 'ondent Nos' 1 to B, 1O and i l. Upon considering the case of bo h the parties, the Wakf Tribunal allowed the Original Appli<;' Ltion and set aside the proceeding in F.No 04-MDK lCl2( 17 lZ' dated

27.04.2023 and directed the respondent No.1 Bc: rd to conduct 4 elections within three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred 7 In grounds of revision, respondent Nos.2 to 12 it is pleaded that Wakf Board is not a party to the Original Application but only the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is made party. The resolution taken by the Board wttln 2l3rct majority is to be implemented by the CEO i,r,ho is under the administrative control of the Board. Since the Board is not arrayed as a party, the Original Application is bad for mis- joinder of parties under Order 1, Rule 9 of CPC. Further, the records of the Wakf Board u.ere not called for passing the impugned order. The Wakf Board took a decision for constitution of committee by passing resolution No.242, dated

06.04.2023 and therefore, Wakf Board is a necessary party as per Section 23(3) and Section 26 of Wakf Act, 1995. There cannot be elections to the Dargah for constitution of Managing Committee as there u,ere huge number of devotees from different parts of the State and Country and it is not possible to conduct elections though regulations permit the same. This fact was not considered by the Tribunal u,hile passing the impugned directing the Board to conduct elections within three -order months. Further, the applicant has no locus stanct the constit.Lltion of Managing Committee as therr: to challenge is Iailure to explain the same ar-rd said aspect was not considel t cl. There is an erroneous conclusion by the ' 8. there are no circumstances prevailing for c:tt Managing Committee by the Wakf Board when c r Committees b1' the Wakf Board in similar circr earlier instances were never challenged' There i: the part of the Tribunal to consider the discret vested in the Wakf Board under Regulation 2 3 ribunal that rstttution of nstitution of mslances in violation on onary pow'er of Managing Committee and said power \vas exercised while crr rstituting the Managing Committee. Earlier Committees cot-t rtituted vide proceedings dated 18.04.201'6 and 14'O9'2OlB an 1 proceedings ofCEoclatedl|.1|.2o2owerenotchallenged.Thepresent proceeding dated 27 .O4.2023 is challenged in Original Application with a malafide intention' There is rn erroneous interpretation of the report of the Inspector Audit t r to the effect that the Board has to take necessary action an<l by exercising discretionary power, the Board constituted t re Managing Committee of the respondent Nos.2 to 12' TL ere is rn'rong * application of judgment reported in 2023 (5) ALt) B 1 I TS u'hich 6 was passed in a Writ Appeal No.B78 of 2023 when facts of said case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In vier.r' of the aforementioned, the impugned order sought to be set aside. 9 The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 12/revision petitioners submitted that there is a glaring error in the manner of liling of the Original Application as Telangana Wakf Board u'as not made as a partv though the proceeding of said Board u'as impugned in the Original Application. It is urged that r,r'ithout the Wakf Board being a Partlr to the proceedings, the Original Application is not maintainable Further, the CEO of the Board is made as a party and said party is under the control of the Board for implementation of the resolutions passed by the Board. The CEO has no independent role in passing the resolutions or constituting the Committees. Therefore, arraying the CEO as a party to the Original Application amounts to mis joinder of party. On the aforementioned grounds itself, the Original Applicable is not maintainable. Further, the locus standi of the applicant to file the Original Application is questioned alieging that there is no 7 description about the ground for the applicant to c r allenge the proceeding issuecl bY the Board.

10. Referring to the order of the Tribunal, it is that the directiotrs of the Tribunai to conduct ele: be implemented as it is ditficult to identify tL devotees of the Dargah etc. from the locai inhabitat is a chance to breach the peace in the vicinrtl conducting the elections. Further, the Board hi' I represented -ions cannot e Zaireens f ts and there , in case ol constituted Managing Comrnittees vide proceedings dated 74.Og.2O18 and 11.1I.2O2O. Hor,vever, in such i challenge was posed by the applicant or any ot

18.04.2016. lstances, no ter member. Onl1' s'hen present Managing Committee was c( nstituted, to harals the members and to prevent them frorr smoothly', the Original Application is filed' Theref'; that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous fu nctioning -e, rt is urged and liable to be set aside. 1 1. The learned standing counsel for responde nt No 1 Chief Executive Officer supported the arguments of res; ondent Nos 2 to 12 8

12. The learned counsel for the applicar-rt argued that the Telangar.ra State Wakf Board is represented bv respondent No.1 Chief Executive Ollicer and therefore, there is no issue of either non-joinder of parties or mis joinder of parties. Further, it is contended that in violation of the Regulation 5 of the Managing Committee (constitution) Regulations 20O9 and in violation of the report of the Inspector Auditor, the Board has arbitrarily constituted the Managing Committee r.r.he n there are two more panels aspiring to be appointed as thc Managing Committee. It is argued that no opportunity u'as given to the remaining panels for being constituted as Managing committee on account of Board taking direct management and passing orders for copstituting a new Managing Committee. Further, it is argued that some of the members are tcnants of the shops run within the premises of Dargah and therefore, they are disqualilied from being appointed as members of the Malaging Committee. In view of the above infirmitics, the Tribunal has passed an appropriate order setting aside the proceedings dated 27.04.2023. \ 1 3. Firstly, the iearned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 12/revision petitioners raised question about the -..e::=< 9 application tor the CtrO maintainability of the original application withoul naking the Wakf Board aS a necessary party u,tren the procef,C ings isstred b1'the Wakf Board is impugned before the Tribur-r':' The Chiel Executive Officer of the Board is a person who act s.under the directions and st-tpervisjon of the Board with no ndependent authoritl'to makc ar-rY decision' The CEO's role is i orited to the C. In vier,v of extent of implerncnting decisions taken by the Boart this fact situation, it is submitted that the origirr t is bad for mis-joinder of parties as there is no ne e I being made a partY and the Board is a necessar-v l aspect, rvhen this Court questioned the learne'l respendent Nos.2 to 12 about whether or not he l'r Board. the categoricai answer was that he acts behest of the Board i.e' he has filed counter before rvith the approval of the Board and is also currett before this Court only at the behest of the Boar'i counsel represented that the CEO is a repres('l Board and therefore, there is no issue about non-r of the Board. Since the CEO is representing tl'r Court is inclined to accept the version of the resl to 12 that the Boarcl is sufficiently represented bl rrty. On this presents the only at the counsel for the Tribunal The learned .1y contesting Ltative of the :presentation r Board, this ondent Nos.2 the CEO and ::10:: ( there is no issue about the mis joinder or non joinder of all partles 1,+. The facts of the case ars r-rarrated bv both the parties show that Dargah Hzt. Fateh Khan (RH) is a Wakf institution as per Government Gazette No.4B A, dated 29.11.200 1. The Wakf institutions include i) Mosque, ii) Ashoorkhana, iii) Alau,ajaat/ Ashoorkhana /Bargah, iv) Chilla/ Sarai / Chilla Nishan, r,) Dargah, vi) Ikamath Khana (Hostet), vii) Idgah, viii) Khaberstan includes Takia, ix) Maqbcra, x) Musafir Khala, xi) Nabl Khana Imambara, etc. Tl-re a,forementioned list includes Dargah n,hich is subject matter of the present dispute. No doubt, vide proceedings dated 18.04.2016 and 14.09.2O18, Managing Committees were constituted by the Telangana Wakf Board through direct management and said proceedings were never challenged by any party. It is not knou.n whether said Committees constituted were unanimous or there were proposals by other committees ald therefore, the appropriateness or validity of the said proceedings cannot be examined herein. 1 5. Currently, the validity of the proceeding dated 27 .O4.2023 is in question before tl-re Tribunal. The Tribunal has '---+{'Fs: :: I 1:: perused tl-re report of the Inspector Auditor riatecl

79.O9.2020 u,hicir shows that tl-rere w'ere four panels requestir1 constituted :rs Managing Commlttee of Dargah Hazt Saheb (Rh). Sincc there werc lour panels asr: constituled as Managing Committee, the Inspt:' proposec'l r-:onduct of clections as per G'O'Ms l 20. 1 1.2009. Further, the Tribunal has noted that t about tenants being some of the members of ll Committee which is impermissible as per Regu[:L Mar-raging committee (Constitution) Regulationr Board. has deliberatelv chosen to distinguish { i datecl 20. 1 I .2009 ers applicable only to Masjid" said G.O is applicable to Wakf institutions and prc thcm to be Fateh Khan iring to be tor Auditor o. 7rl, dated rere is issue e Managing ion 9 of the The Wakf O.Ms.No.74, u,hereas the perties'.

16. The sr-tblect matter of the present dispr'r -e is Dargah Hazt Fateh Khan Saheb (Rh) which is a Wak I institution' Therefore, the G.O.Ms.N o'74 ts applicable to the lresent Wakf institution i.e. Dargah. Only for the purpose of t ircumventing the report of the Inspector Auditor, a {ictitious Cistinction is created betvveen Mas.lid and Dargah though botb lf them come under the Wakf institutions and the Board has r: 'nstituted the present Managing Committee vide proc''- rding dated ..1 1..

27.O4.2023 The Tribunal has given a specific finding that vvhen there is only one panel applying lor constitution ol the Managing Committee, the Board can unanimously proceed to appoint the same. Hor,r,ever, when there are more than one application from different panels for con stitution of Managing Committee i.e. w,hen there is no unanimous panel, the only option available is to conduct elections. The Board cannot shirk its responsibilitl, to conduct elections on the ground of practicability of the process of conclucting elections.

17. The G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 2O.It.2OOg proposes to conduct elections for Wakf institutions whenever it is necessary. Therefore, the Wakf board has the responsibility to design and streamline process for cor-rducting elections rather than shirking the same on the imagined ground of difficulty in identifying the Ziareens/ devotees of Dargah. I,.urther, when a complaint is made that some of the members are tenants running shops in the premises of Dargah, said issue has to be taken up by the Board seriously to ascertain whether there is violation of Regulation 9 of the Managing Committee (Constitution) Regulations, in constituting the Maraging Committee. No purpose will be serr.ed by brushing asicle the ::13:: allegations without coming up with concrete eviclence to support their ori'n stand.

18. The Board represented by CEO in the absence of concrete evidence of non violation of Regulat r n 9 of the Managing Committee (Constitution) Regulatron r and non' applicability of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 20.l\.2)O9 cannot support the constitution of Managing Comr i -tee without elections- Therclore, this Court does not see ar y ground to interfere rvith thc order passed by the Tribunal Lnd the Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the same iri liable to be dismi ssed

19. Accordingly, this Civii Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order passed in O.A.No.71 of 2023, dated O5.O2 .2021 b1' the lealncd Telangana State Wzrlr Tribunal at Hvd era ba d Pending miscellaneous applications, if al1 , shall stand closed. No costs //TRUE COPY// Sd/. U. SUDHA S TANT REGISTRAR \ iECTION OFFICER rTt'\ 1',I To, l.TheChiefExecutiveofficer,TelanganaStateWaqfBoarcofficeatHajj House,NamPallY, HYderabad 'ttleUOt Z. One Cb to SRl. M i. O"" CC to SRl. MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Advocak: OPUCI +. One CC to SRl. MOHAMMED ISMAIL Advocate [OPUC' 5. Two CD CoPies HUSSAIN Advocate [OPUC] WPK I ts-,-....-i-.i.-;----t HIGH COURT DATED:21 1111202s ORDER CRP.No.939 of 2024 i() 1 illE S tr' r(c Y ( iAN 2026 ;.,., t -.1 r":f' * DISMISS!NG THE CIVIL REVISION PEITITION. a-): Ld?'" q Y*--<leL t\k'