IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21793 of 2000 Between: Mumtaz Yar-Ud-Doula wakf, rep., by its Honorary Secretary, Nawab Mahaboob Alam Kha Hyderabad. … Petitioner AND A.P. State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. Krishna L. Gahloth for Sri V. Venkataramana Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S.M. Subhan SC for Wakf Board This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21793 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash orders dated 28.08.2000 passed in I.A.No.396 of 2000 in I.A.No.350 of 1999 in O.S.No.132 of 1999. Heard Smt. Krishna L. Gahloth representing Sri Vedula Venkataramana learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is the plaintiﬀ in O.S.No.132 of 1999 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, which was filed seeking eviction of respondent Nos. 2 to 6. In the suit, it ﬁled I.A.Nos.348 and 350 of 1999 for injunction against the respondents from disconnecting the amenities such as electricity, water supply, drainage etc., to the tenants, who attorned their tenancies in favour of the petitioner of the premises forming part of the premises occupied by respondent Nos.2 to 6 as lessees. Alleging that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have been threatening to disconnect the amenities despite the orders passed by respondent No.1, Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner ﬁled I.A.Nos.396 and 397 of 2000 in I.A.Nos.350 and 348 of 1999 respectively seeking police aid. The said two applications were dismissed by the Tribunal. In the orders passed by it, the Tribunal held that except the ipsi dixit of the petitioner, there is no material to show that respondent Nos.2 to 6 were trying to disobey its orders. It relied upon the statements made by respondent Nos.2 to 6 that they never interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the tenants. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that no tenant has approached it complaining of disconnection of amenities and dismissed the applications ﬁled by the petitioner for police aid with the observation that if respondent Nos.2 to 6 disconnect the amenities, the tenants shall be free to approach it under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to initiate action for disobedience of the order of temporary injunction. In my considered view, the reasoning of the Tribunal in dismissing the applications does not suﬀer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 have come forward with the statement before the Tribunal that they are not interfering with the amenities. This coupled with the fact that the petitioner failed to show any material whatsoever to show that respondent Nos.2 to 6 indulged in disobedience of the orders of injunction justiﬁed the Tribunal in refusing to grant police aid by giving liberty to the tenants to initiate appropriate proceedings for violation of the injunction orders, in the event respondent Nos.2 to 6 disconnect the amenities. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.27695 of 2000 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.10.2008 ES