IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8274 of 2005 Between: Mohd. Moosa, S/o.Late Raj Mohammad, R/o.M.C.H.No.17-3-186/12/1 Imam Bada, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, rep.by its Chief Executive officer, Hazi Complex, Public Garden Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Khalid Abul Mansoor, S/o.Late Gulam Samdani, R/o.M.C.H.No.19-3-262/2/20, Jahanuma, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.T.GHORI Counsel for Respondent No.1: MOHD. ABDUL RAFI Counsel for Respondent No.2 : MR.JAMALI FOR MR.MOHD.ZIA-UL-HAQ The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Sri M.T.Ghori, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohd. Abdul Rafi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Jamali representing Sri Mohd. Zia Ul Haq, learned counsel for respondent No.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner called in question proceedings, dated 19.03.2005 issued by respondent No.1 appointing respondent No.2 as Muthawalli of Mosque Gousia with Ashoorkhana Imambada. The grievance of the petitioner as reflected in the averments contained in his affidavit and argued by the learned counsel appearing on his behalf is that in an enquiry conducted under Section 70 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) into the affairs of respondent No.1, the petitioner participated therein and the Enquiry Officer by his order, dated 16.12.2000 rejected the claim of respondent No.2 and that notwithstanding the same, on the basis of a purported fresh enquiry report, respondent No.2 was appointed as Muthawalli by the impugned proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned proceedings. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned proceedings are in the nature of appointment of respondent No.2, which are traceable to Section 63 of the Act. The said provision does not envisage issue of notice to a third party such as the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.2 as Muthawalli, he has an effective remedy of filing an application under Section 83(2) of the Act before the Wakf Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) questioning the proceedings of appointing respondent No.2 as Muthawalli. Therefore, this writ petition filed bypassing such an effective remedy cannot be adjudicated on merits. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file an application under Section 83(2) of the Act before the Tribunal. If such an application is filed within four (4) weeks from today, the Tribunal shall entertain and adjudicate the same on merits without raising objection on the limitation. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 20th June, 2008. kvni