Mohammed Younus, v. The Chief Executive Officer, And Ano.,
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO: 19066 OF 2009 Between:
Mohammed Younus, S/o. tr/ohd Abbas, Business, R/o- H. No.3- 4-3031114, Lingampally, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER AND
1. The Chief Execulive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Office at A.P.Haj House Razzaq Manzil, Nampally, Hyderabad.
2. It/r. Ghulam Qader, S/o. Late Mr. Ghulam Dastagir, Business, R/o.H.No.17-6777 , Dabeerpura, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutron of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or writs more appropriately a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings F.No.M5/331/Prot/Hyd/2000 dated 20-07-2009 issued by the 1st respondent is illegal, void and ultra vires in the interset of justice and equity. WPMP. NO: 24913 OF 2009 Petition under Section '1 5'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings F.No.tt/5i331/Prot/Hydi2000 dated 20-7-2009 till the disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. ABDUL MUQEETH QURESHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI MIRZA SAFIULLA BAIG SC FOR WAKF BOARD Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI MOHAMMED RAHAIL AHMEO The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.19066 OF 2OO9 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Safiulla Baig, leaned Standing counsel for Wakf Board and Sri Mohd Rahail Ahmed, learned counsel for 2"a respondent. This writ petition is fi1ed seeking the following relief :- "...............Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceeding F.No.MS/331/Prot/Hyd /2OOO dated 2O.O7 .2OO9 issued by the 1"t respondent, is il1ega1, boid and ultra vires in the interest of justice............"
It has been contended by the petitioner that he is the care taker of the Vakil Saheb which is a notified Wakf and has been taking care of the said institution to the best satisfaction of his superiors and everyone concerned. The grievance of the petitioner is that under Section 5a(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995, the 1$ respondent had issued notice on 13.04.2009 to the effect that petitioner is an encroacher and gave 1 5 days time to submit explanation. Though petitioner had submitted explanation to the said notice on 29.O4.2OO9, the 1"t respondent without considering the said explanation has passed impugned order dated 20.O7 .2OO9 holding that the petitioner is an encroacher. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 29.04.2009, the respondents have issued the impugned order categorically stating that petitioner had not submitted his expianation so far, which clearly goes to show that the respondents have not taken into
consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, he contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated 20.O7.2OO9 and further direct the 1"t respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 29.O4.2OO9 and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law.
Learned Standing counsel appearing for the lst respondent contends that since the explanation submitted by the petitioner ort 29.O4.2OO9 was not considered by the l"t respondent while passing the impugned order, the petitioner be permitted to Iile fresh explanation and thereafter, the 1"t respondent would consider the same along with the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 24.O9.2OO9 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 20.07.2009 is passed without taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 24.O4.2OO9 and on that ground, the impugned order is iiable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. Further, the 1.1 respondent is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 29.O4.2OO9 in addition to the fresh explanation to be submitted by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in another twelve weeks thereafter, after giving opportunity to the petitioner.
With the above direction, this \\.rit petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand ciosed. SD/. T A BABU ASSIST GIS //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER To, The Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Office at A.P.Haj House Razzaq Manzil, Nampally, Hyderabad.
One CC to Sri. Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi, Advocale IOPUC] One CC to Sri. [t/irza Safiulla Baig, SC FOR WAKF BOARD IOPUC] One CC to Sri Mohammed Rahail Ahmed, Advocate tOPUCI Two CD Copies 2.
4.
CHR \.,-
HIGH COURT AKS,J DATED:2410212020 t{E S'fAI(- ( ou 2 4 [Pn 2U20 t *.
r.
ORDER
W.P.No.19066 of 2009 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -lnfi** :