THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16684 of 2010 Date:21st June, 2011 Between: Al Haj Mohd. Ismail S/o.Late Mohd. Ali, Aged 39 years, R/o.H.No.1-9-612, Postal Colony, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ….Petitioner and 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Minority Welfare (Wakf-I) Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Ors. ….Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16684 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Al Haj Mohd. Ismail assailing the proceeding, dated 08.07.2010, bearing file No.37/B1/DWC/WGL/2002, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad-2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner claims to be the President of the District Wakf Committee, Warangal, having been appointed under proceedings vide Memo.No.8689/Wakf.I/A1/2007-1, dated 01.10.2008. His grievance is that the Government directed the Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad–2nd respondent for constitution of the District Wakf Committee, Warangal District, for a period of three years under Memo. No.8689/Wakf.I/A1/2007-1, dated 01.10.2008, but whereas, the Chief Executive Officer-2nd respondent appointed the committee headed by the petitioner for a period of one year. He submitted various representations seeking extension of his tenure in tune with the Memo. dated 01.10.2008 issued by the Government. Ultimately, the Chief Executive Officer-2nd respondent issued proceeding, dated 08.07.2010, appointing the District Wakf Committee. Under the said proceeding, respondents 4 to 19 have been appointed as members of the District Wakf Committee. The said proceeding is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner challenges the said proceeding on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer-2nd respondent appointed the committee without application of mind and solely acting on the panel recommended by Sri Basavaraju Saraiah, M.L.A. of Warangal. The other ground is that his tenure is not yet completed in view of the Memo. dated 01.10.2008, issued by the Government of A.P. The last ground is that the impugned proceeding came to be issued while the Model Election Code was in vogue. 4. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 16.07.2010. 5. The respondents 4 to 19 filed counter-affidavit contending that the committee came to be constituted by the Chief Executive Officer basing on the resolutions of the A.P. Wakf Board. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the aggrieved party has to approach the Tribunal under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995, and therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 19. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Government issued Memo. No.8689/Wakf.I/A1/2007-1, dated 01.10.2008, directing the Chief Executive Officer-2nd respondent for constitution of the District Wakf Committee, Warangal, for a period of three years and whereas, the Chief Executive Officer-2nd respondent issued proceeding on 01.10.2008 constituting the committee for a period of one year. Since the proceeding issued by the Chief Executive Officer-2nd respondent with regard to the tenure of the committee is contrary to the instructions issued by the Government of A.P., the term of the District Wakf Committee is deemed to be for three years. A further submission has been made that appointing the District Wakf Committee, basing on the recommendation of the M.L.A., is contrary to the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. He would also contend that the constitution of the committee on 08.07.2010 cannot be sustained, as the same has been constituted while the Model Election Code was in force. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Intezami Committee Mazid-E- Osmania v. A.P. State Wakf Board[1]. Much emphasis has been laid in para.3 of the judgment, which reads as hereunder: “(3) The above appointment of the ad hoc committee is purportedly made under Section 18 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The same reads as follows: “(1) The Board may, whenever it considers necessary, establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas committees for the supervision of wakfs. (2) The constitution, functions and duties and the term of office of such committees shall be determined from time to time by the Board. Provided that it shall not be necessary for the members of such committees to be members of the Board”. A mere reading of the above is enough to convince that the Board has to be satisfied that it is necessary to establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas, committees for the supervision of wakfs. It cannot be the satisfaction of a Member of the Legislative Assembly or a Minister in the Government of the State that will decide the necessity to establish a committee and who shall be the members of the committee. It is obvious and ancillary to the power of the Board to appoint committees, that it is required to be decided not by any outside agency or person but by the Board. The Special Officer who exercised the powers of the Board thus could decide on his own whether it was/is necessary to establish the above ad hoc committee and who would/shall be the members of the committee. He could not have decided to appoint an Ad hoc Managing Committee because a certain Member of the Legislative Assembly wanted him to do so or because a Minister in the Government of the State endorsed the recommendations of the Member of the Legislative Assembly. One of the settled principles of law which Lord Esher M.R. stated in The Queen on the Prosecution of Richard Westbrook in the late 19th Century (1890) 24 Queens Bench Division 371, “If people who have to exercise a public duty by exercising their discretion take into account matters which the Courts consider not to be proper for the guidance of their discretion, then in the eye of the law they have not exercised their discretion’ ‘has found very many eminent approvals including that of the Supreme Court of India in S.R. Venkataramn v. Union of India (1) AIR 1979 SC 49 and it is stated in the later, “The influence of extraneous matters will be undoubted where the authority making the order has admitted their influence”. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 19 submits that the proceeding, dated 08.07.2010, issued by the Chief Executive Officer-2nd respondent, is not purely based on the panel submitted by the M.L.A., but is based on the panel furnished by the District Collector, Warangal and that the Board after due consideration of the panel exercised its discretion and constituted the District Wakf Committee, in which case the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the panel, which has been constituted as per the procedure laid down in the Wakf Act, 1995. A further submission has been made that the petitioner has to work out his remedy before the Tribunal constituted under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995, and invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, in the given facts and circumstances, is wholly unjustified. In support of his submissions, reliance has been made on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum & Anr.[2]. Much emphasis has been laid on para.14 of the judgment, which reads as hereunder: “Thus, the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The words “any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property” are, in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. The word ‘Wakf’ has been defined in Section 3[r] of the Wakf Act, 1995 and hence once the property is found to be a Wakf property as defined in Section 3[r], then any dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated before the Wakf Tribunal.” 9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the District Wakf Committee came to be constituted by the Board after considering the material placed on record and after giving due consideration of the panel forwarded by the District Collector, Warangal, dated 05.06.2010, and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have gone through the material placed on record. The Committee headed by the petitioner came to be appointed on 01.10.2008. The tenure of the Committee is for one year. The petitioner did not choose to question the said proceedings on the ground that the tenure indicated therein is not in accordance with the memo issued by the Government on 01.10.2008. The petitioner acted as President of the District Wakf Committee for a period of one year as indicated in the proceeding, dated 01.10.2008. Thereafter, he went on submitting representations for extension of the term of the committee head by him. The Wakf Board has not taken any decision with regard to his representations and instead considered the fresh panels. The Board passed resolution on 06.07.2010 constituting the new committee. Ofcoruse, there is a reference of the panel submitted by the M.L.A. A close reading of the proceedings indicates that the new committee came to be constituted not solely based on the panel submitted by the M.L.A., but based on the panel furnished by the District Collector. The Board considered the material on record and passed resolution on 06.07.2010. Pursuant to the Board resolution, the Chief Executive Offier-2nd respondent issued the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the A.P. Wakf Board has not applied its mind and simply acted upon the panel sent by the M.L.A. Further, the term of the committee headed by the petitioner has been expired in the year 2009 itself, therefore, he has no legal or statutory right to maintain the Writ Petition. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYAN REDDY, J. Date:21st June, 2011. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16684 of 2010 Date:21st June, 2011 [1] 1996(2) ALD 661 = 1996(1) APLJ 475 [2] 2011 (1) ALD 61 (SC)