IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 14288 of 2007 Between: M/s. Madina & Company, rep. by Proprietor Mohd. Ashan Khan, S/o. Late Mohd. Omar, Mulgi No.4-1-709, of Safar Khan Tavela, Moazamjahi Market, Hyd. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.STate Wakf Board, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Having its Office at Opposite Public Garden road, Nampally, Hyd. 2 G.M.Khan Mutawali of SAfar Khan TAvela Wakf, Moazamjahi Market, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J. Anantharamulu for Sri Kishore Rai Counsel for Respondent No.1: Abdul Najeeb Khan (SC FOR WAKF BOARD) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 14288 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to consider the representation/complaint dated 18.03.2006 filed by the petitioner against respondent No.2. Heard Sri J. Anantharamulu representing Sri Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abdul Najeeb Khan for respondent No.1. There is no appearance for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing, stated that though his client sought to serve notice on respondent No.2, he refused to receive the same. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, this Court need not wait for service of notice on respondent No.2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is interfering with his day-to-day business by coming in drunken condition. The petitioner averred that it is a lessee of the Wakf concerned and respondent No.2 being mutawalli is causing nuisance by seeking to interfere with the business in a drunken condition. The petitioner further pleaded that though he made representation on 18.03.2006 to the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.1 board, he has not taken any action against respondent No.2 so far. If respondent No.2 is guilty of drunkenness and affecting the business of the petitioner, it is the obligation of respondent No.1 to take action against him. Whether the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No.2 are correct or not is required to be considered and decided by respondent No.1. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.1 board to dispose of representation dated 18.03.2006 filed by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order passed by him on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.17949 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.02.2008 ES To 1.2CCs 2.2CD copies