IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3262 of 2005 Between: Zaki Abul Hasan Khan, S/o. Late Mohd, Shabbir Hussain Khan, Ashoor Khana Hussaini Kalan, Shoukat Mansion, 17-3-516, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, rep.by special officer, Haj House, Nampally,Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Executive officer A.P.State Wakf Board, Having its office at Haj House, Nampally, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KISHORE RAI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.M.QURESHI The Court made the following : O R D E R: 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. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 28-01-2005 issued by respondent No.2, whereby he appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry under Sections 70 and 71 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). Sri Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to the impugned order and the provisions of Section 70 of the Act and contended that the ground on which respondent No.2 appointed the Enquiry Officer falls completely outside the scope of the provisions of Section 70 of the Act. I have heard Sri Mohd Abdul Rafee, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, and Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, who filed an application on behalf of Hameed Hussain Khan to get impleaded as a party to the writ petition. Section 70 of the Act reads as under: “70. Inquiry relating to administration of wakf- 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” In the impugned order, it is stated that in respect of ‘Khitabul wakf’, which is a notified wakf, there are several claims for appointment of Mutawalli and that as such, it was decided to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry into the rival claims for appointment as Mutawalli. In my considered view, respondent No.2 completely misread the scope of the provisions of Section 70 of the Act. Under the said provision, only if the Board is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the affairs of the wakf are being mismanaged, an enquiry can be instituted into the administration of the wakf. In the impugned order, there is no whisper of mismanagement by the existing Mutawalli. The ground of enquiry viz., to decide on the rival claims for Mutawalliship falls completely outside the scope of Section 70 of the Act. Hence, the impugned order is ultra vires the provisions of Section 70 of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.7853 of 2005 is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 18th June, 2008 vrn