IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5701 of 2008 Between: D.Md.Ashfok, S/o.Late D.Anwar Basha, Akbar Urf Masthanvali (R.A) R/o.Door No.18/71, Main Road, Gunthakal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Executive Officer, A.P.State Wakf Board Haj House, Opp: Public Garden Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The Special Officer, A.P.State Wakf Board Haj House, Opp: Public Garden Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Inspector Auditor, A.P.State Wakf Board , Ananthapur District. Opp: Public Garden Nampally, Hyderabad 4 D.Abdul Waheb,S/o.Late Abdul Gafoor, Door No.18/76(c), Flour Mills, Main Road, Guntakal, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropirate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in not taking any action against therepresetations dated 09-01-2008, 22.01.2008, 22.02.2008 and 03.01.2008 restraining therespondent No.4 from interfering into the duties of Hereditary Muthawallies of Hazrath Syed Sha Ali Akbar Urf Masthanvali (R.A.), as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct therespondents to not to interfere into the day to day affairs and duties of Hereditary Muthawallies of Syed Sha Ali Akbar Urf Masthanvali (R.A.) and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.SHAFATH AHMED KHAN The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5701 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the representations of the petitioner dated 9.1.2008, 22.1.2008, 22.2.2008 and 3.3.2008 requesting to restrain the respondent no.4 from interfering with the duties of the petitioner as Hereditary Muthawallies of Hazrath Syed Sha Ali Akbar Urf Masthanvali (R.A) as illegal. The brief facts, which lead to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner claims that he was appointed as Hereditary notified Mutawalli of Syed Shah Ali Akbar Urf Masthanvali (R.A.) Guntakal (for short referred to as Dargah) vide gazette notification no.14 dated 30.4.1998 along with others. He alleges that being a Mutawalli of the Dargah he is entitled to participate in the elections conducted on 14.1.2008 at Hyderabad, but his name was removed and the name of the fourth respondent was entered in the voters list. On noticing the same, he filed a detailed representation dated 9.1.2008 to the respondents 1 to 3 to permit him to participate in the elections, however, he was not permitted to do so. Thereafter, the fourth respondent alleged to have taken possession of the Dargah and not properly maintaining the accounts and when petitioner questioned about the same, he warned the petitioner with dire consequences. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations dated 22.1.2008, 22.2.2008 and also on 3.3.2008, but till date no action is taken. The petitioner further alleges that he is responsible for the affairs of the Dargah and answerable to A.P. Wakf Board and the fourth respondent without any power has taken over the affairs of the Dargah and misappropriating the funds of the Dargah. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that due to the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 in taking action against the fourth respondent, the petitioner is deprived of his right to perform the religious functions and manage the affairs of the Dargah and taking advantage of the same, the fourth respondent is misappropriating the funds of the Dargah and sought for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to expeditiously dispose of the representations of the petitioner in accordance with law. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Both the counsel, agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission itself with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representations of the petitioner expeditiously. Having regard to the agreed stand of both the counsel and in view of the fact that the representations of the petitioner dated 9.1.2008, 22.1.2008, 22.2.2008 and 3.3.2008 are pending with the respondents, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents 1 and 3 to consider the above said representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE:18.4.2008 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5701 of 2008 Date: 18.3.2008