@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO:12808 of 2000 DATED: 13-02-2008 Between: Dargah Hzt.Giaram Saheed Graveyard & Khankah Gajwel, rep.by its Muthawalli Sri Abdul Muqtadar ..... PETITIONER AND A.P.State Wakf Board, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad and two others. .....RESPONDENTS @#@#@#@#@#@#@ ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to call for the records and quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 20-06-2000. The petitioner was the erstwhile Mutavalli. Certain allegations were made against him regarding the management of the Wakf property. The Wakf Board took steps for enquiry regarding the activities of the petitioner and an enquiry report was submitted to the Wakf Board mentioning that certain irregularities and mismanagement have been noticed and suggested to remove the Mutavalli and take the Wakf Institution and its attached properties under the direct management of the Wakf Board. In pursuance of that, the Wakf Board unanimously passed a resolution on 10-05- 2000 after following the procedure prescribed under law and took possession of the properties of the institution and the petitioner was removed from Mutavalliship. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same presented the writ petition praying to quash the proceedings of the Wakf Board dated 20-06-2000. The petitioner contended that even if the Wakf Board takes the management of the properties under Section 65 (1) of the Wakf Act the Board is not supposed to continue in management for more than five years and since from the date of order five years have been elapsed the Wakf Board has no right to continue in possession and management of the properties and requested to direct delivery of the property to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after taking direct management of the property, within two months the Wakf Board constituted a committee under Section 18 of the Wakf Act by constituting an adhoc committee represented by third respondent committee. Therefore, the question of handing over the management to the petitioner by the Wakf Board does not arise. Though the petitioner contended that the procedure prescribed under Section 65 of the Wakf Act has not been followed, after verification of the record, I am convinced that the procedure has been followed before passing the impugned order and there is no illegality found in the order passed by the Wakf Board. If there is any grievance to the petitioner about the order passed by the Wakf Board regarding the management of the properties and removal of the Mutavalli post, he is at liberty to work out his rights before appropriate forum and the writ Court cannot decide the disputed questions of fact which are under dispute between the parties. In the light of the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to agitate his rights before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. It is clarified that the respondents Wakf Board do not have any bar to have direct management of the property for more than five years under Section 65 (1) of the Act. No order as to costs. _________________ 13th February, 2008 SKM