THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14167 of 2011 (Dated : 18-07-2011) Between: Shaik Jameel Ahmed ….…Petitioner. A n d The Chief Executive Officer, AP State Wakf Board, Razzack Manzil, A.P. Haj House, Hyderabad and others. ….…Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14167 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Shaik Jameel Ahmed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in F.No.1/DSSH/Auc/NZB/2010-Suppl Z-III, dated 03.5.2011 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Razzack Manzil-1st respondent appointing Janab Mohammed Iliyas Hussain, Janab Sk. Zakiruddin, Janab Suleman Khan, Janab Younus Hussain and Janab Mohmood Khan-respondents 2 to 6 as Fateha Khwani for Darga Hazarat Syed Saadullah Hussaini (Rh), Bada Pahad, Varni (M) as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 2. The petitioner claims that he is the Mujawar of Dargah Hazarth Syed Saadullah Hussaini (Rh), Bada Pahad, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District. Even prior to him, his fore fathers were the Mujawars of the said Darga. According to him, the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent on 03.5.2011 are without putting him on notice and therefore it is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice in which case, the proceedings dated 03.05.2011 are liable to be set aside. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 18.05.2011. The respondent No.1 entered appearance and filed his counter. 4. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner is self-styled Mujawar and he has never been appointed as Mujawar of Darga Hazarth Syed Saadullah Hussaini (Rh). It is also stated in the counter that the Wakf Board has got power under Section 32 (2) (o) of the Wakf Act, to do all such acts as may be necessary for the control and maintenance and administration of wakf inasmuch as in the capacity of Muthawalli when the subject wakf institution is itself under the direct management of the Wakf Board. 5. The petitioner filed his reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the 1st respondent has no power to appoint the respondents 2 to 6 herein as ‘Fateha Khwani’ to perform the duties of a Mujawar. For better appreciation, I may refer to Para No.5 of the reply affidavit, which reads as hereunder:- “I submit that the further contention of the respondent that no discharge the services of a family which has testamentary right in the Dargah without conducting an enquiry and without giving an opportunity of hearing which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice leave apart Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No.1 in para 6 to the effect that it is the exclusive domain of the respondent whether to conduct an enquiry and call for a report not as long as the material available is sufficient to take a decision and without disclosing such a material or furnishing the same to the affected person(s) is illegal and the said action can be called as malafide one.” 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been performing the duties of Mujawar since quite a long time, even prior to him his fore fathers performed the same duties. In a way, the duties of Mujawar have been performed by the family members of the petitioner for the last 300 years. A further submission has been made that the proceedings impugned in the writ petition came to be issued without putting on notice to the petitioner in which case, the proceedings are liable to be set aside as there being in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioner is self-styled Mujawar and had no point of time, the 1st respondent appointed him as Mujawar. 9. I have gone through the representation dated 14.4.2010 submitted by the petitioner. Three points are required to be noted. Firstly, the family members of Mujawars of the three groups are 81 in number. They have voluntarily formed a trust and are functioning under the name and style as “Trust Dargah Hzt. Syed Saadullah Hussaini (Rh), Bada Pahad, Jalalpur, Nizamabad District”. Secondly, the subject institution has been continuously under the management of the Wakf Board and the petitioner has been continuously representing to the Wakf Baord for Toliath. Thirdly, the petitioner is not one among the three Mujawars, referred in the resolution dated 19.1.1973. More precisely, the names of Mujawars mentioned in the resolution dated 19.1.1973 are:- (i) Mohammad Khasim, (ii) Mohammad Ismail and (iii) Jamaluddin. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is the son of Jamaluddin whose name finds place in the resolution dated 19.1.1973. He also refers the proceedings dated 22.2.1988 issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board. The memo reads as hereunder:- “In tune with the previous practice in vogue to Muzawars of Dargah Hzt. Syed Saadullah Hussaini Rh, Jalalpur (v) Nizamabad District are hereby permitted to make necessary arrangements for the following: 1. Chaliefe Mubarak, 2. Nashan-e-Mubarak, 3. Sandal/Malide, 4. Niaz Shareef (Meal for the poors).” 11. The memo has been marked to the petitioner herein. He has been described as Mujawar while marking copy of the memo. It is the plea of the petitioner that there are three families who claim to be the Mujawars of the institution and the number of three families are about 81. They voluntarily formed a trust in the name and style of Trust Darga Dargah Hzt. Syed Saadullah Hussaini (Rh), Bada Pahad, Jalalpur, Nizamabad District. When the petitioner himself states that the trust has been formed to protect the rights of all the Mujawars, it is impermissible for him to question the proceedings in his individual capacity. When a trust has been formed, it is the trust who has to question the proceedings impugned in the writ petition and not the petitioner in his individual capacity. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:18.7.2011. mrb