IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT The Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana Writ Petition No.7861 of 2001 Between: Mohammed Ghouse Mohiusdin. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana Writ Petition No.7861 of 2001 Order: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent-A.P. Wakf Board to take action against the second respondent-Committee for its misadministration, and to order an enquiry under Section 70 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’), in respect of Mosque Nade Ali with graveyard and Dargah Hazrath Feroz Shah situated in Survey No.713 of Toutyal Tarfa, Bodhan, Nizamabad, and attached agricultural property admeasuring Ac.2.39 cents of dry land, and Ac.9.21 cents of wet land in Survey Nos.130, 212, 228, 404, 689/1, 2, 3, 693, 537 and 713. In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated by the petitioner that the predecessors of the President of the second respondent-Committee were appointed as Muthawallis from time to time, under Section 18 of the Wakf Act, to manage the affairs of the aforesaid Wakf Property. The second respondent-Committee was nominated by the first respondent- Wakf Board under the Presidentship of late Nazeer Ahmed Siddiqui vide Proceedings No.34/NZB/96, dated 11-06-1996 for a period of one year. The petitioner alleged that one Md. Zaheeruddin alias Baber, without any approval or sanction, became the President of the second respondent-Committee and continued to act as such beyond his tenure, which lapsed on 18-01-2001. It is further alleged that the said Md. Zaheeruddin illegally dismantled the structures and raised constructions thereon and leased out to his relatives and misappropriated the amounts so received. It is further alleged that he failed to perform the religious functions such as Urs etc., and has been causing inconvenience to the Minority Committee. It is submitted that the representation made by him to the first respondent on 13-02-2001 went in vain. Hence, he prays to direct the first respondent to order enquiry under Section 70 of the Wakf Act. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed their respective counter- affidavits. Reiterating the counter averments filed on behalf of the first respondent, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that on earlier occasion, when similar allegations of misappropriation and mismanagement were made against the second respondent, a detailed enquiry was conducted in the year 2005, and the enquiry officer submitted his report to the effect that the second respondent having dismantled the old structure, constructed new building of the mosque, by incurring huge expenditure of Rs. 20.00 lakhs with the permission of the District Collector, Nizamabad, and by obtaining donations from the Muslim Community and funds from the Wakf Board. He further submitted that the second respondent has been managing the affairs of the Mosque and its properties, with full care and caution, and that without taking any monetary benefit from the Wakf board, it has taken up several constructions, and has protected the Wakf land attached to the said Mosque by obtaining stay order from the High Court vide W.P. No. 20288 of 2003, when it was being allotted to the encroachers by the City Municipality, Bodhan, under G.O. Ms. Nos. 104 and 350. He further submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the petitioner, if aggrieved, has to approach the Wakf Tribunal, which is empowered to deal with the matters of present nature. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, reiterating the counter averments, submits that the second respondent-Committee has constructed a school building known as “Hazrath Syed Shah Feroz Anwar Ulloom” in front of the Nade Ali Mosque at Bodhan with an investment of Rs. 25 lakhs and with the permission of the A.P. Wakf Board, by collecting the amount by way of contributions and donations and the said school is being managed by the members of the second respondent-Committee without charging any fee from the students. He further submitted that the second respondent is also taking necessary steps to evict the encroachers from the aforesaid Wakf property. He further submitted that this Writ Petition, in the name of public interest, seeks to espouse private interest, and as such, it is misconceived. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. The petitioner, except making bald statement that he made representation to the Board to make an enquiry into the allegations made by him, has not filed any proof to show that he had made any such representation to the Board. In this context, it would be appropriate to quote Section 70 of the Wakf Act, which reads as follows: Section 70: Any person interested in a wakf may make an application to the Board, supported by an affidavit, to institute an inquiry relating to the administration of the wakf, and if the Board is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the affairs of the wakf are being mismanaged, it shall take such action thereon as it thinks fit. From the above provision, it is clear that any person interested in a wakf can make an application supported by an affidavit to the Board to institute an enquiry into the administration of the wakf, and the Board, if it satisfies for itself that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the affairs of the wakf are being mismanaged, shall take action. As stated above, the petitioner except baldly stating that he made a representation to the Board, has not furnished any proof of any representation having been made by him, much less in the manner as prescribed under the Act. Be that as it may, a reading of contents of the counter- affidavits filed by the first and second respondents would disclose that on earlier occasion, on similar allegations and attributions, a detailed enquiry was conducted against the second respondent in the year 2005, and the enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry, submitted his report stating that the second respondent has been managing the affairs of the Mosque and its properties, with full care and caution, and has protected the Wakf land attached to the said Mosque by obtaining stay orders from this Court in W.P. No. 20288 of 2003, when it was being allotted to the encroachers by the City Municipality, Bodhan, under G.O. Ms. Nos. 104 and 350. It further discloses that without taking any monetary benefit from the Wakf board, the second respondent has taken up several constructions viz., new building of the mosque and a school building known as “Hazrath Syed Shah Feroz Anwar Ulloom” by collecting the amounts by way of contributions and donations and the said school is being managed by the members of the second respondent-Committee without charging any fee from the students. This apart, the Writ Petition is silent as to the nature of the infringement of the rights of the petitioner due to the alleged misadministration of the second respondent-Committee and the allegations are baseless. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner is an affected party or an interested person, he should approach the appropriate forum as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. ________________ (N.V. RAMANA, J) 30th January, 2008 lur