IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10955 of 2009 Between: Md. Mujahed @ Rizwan S/o. Md. Ibrahim R/o. H.No. 16-7-217/1, Azampura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Haj House, Nampally Road, Hyderabad. 2 Mirza Anwar Baig S/o. Late Mirza Aban Baig Noor Education Society R/o. H.No 16-7-423/1, Opp. Rasheed Function Hall Osmanpura, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandmaus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 making extension of the 2nd respondent committee from 2-6-2009 to further in respect of the wakf Property Mosque Masjid-e-Bagh Muslim Jung is illegal, arbitrary violation of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of india and in contravention of the wakf Act 1995 and principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No.1 not to extend the Managing Committee of the respondent No.2 in respect of Wakf Property Mosque Masjid-e- Bagh Muslim Jung and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.T.GHORI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.A.K.MUKHEED The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.10955 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is misconceived, as it is premature. The 2nd respondent by proceedings No.8/Hyd/C1/2007 dated.02.06.2007 constituted the managing committee for the Jamia Masjid Sahifa (Bagh Muslim Jung) situated at Azampura, for a period of two years w.e.f.02-06-2007 with the 2nd respondent as the President of the committee. The 1st respondent however by proceedings dated.06-06-2007 on the basis of complaints by a delegation of Musallies of the Jamia Masjid Sahifa kept the order dated.02.06.2007 in abeyance. Thereafter, in an appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent to the Wakf Tribunal in O.A.No. 17 of 2007, the Wakf Tribunal disposed of the appeal by the order dated.09- 07-2008 granting liberty to the 1st respondent to consider the representation by the Mussalies, in accordance with the provisions of the Wakf Act,1995. The petitioner complained of irregularities committed by the members of the managing committee constituted by the 1st respondent’s proceedings dated.02-06- 2007. He made representations to the 1st respondent on 17-04-2008, 24-04-2008, 01-05-2008, 11-05-2008 and 15-05-2008 seeking an enquiry into the conduct of those members. As the 1st respondent did not take up the enquiry into the misconduct alleged against the members of the committee, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16666 of 2008 seeking an appropriate direction to the 1st respondent. This writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 02-12-2008 directing the 1st respondent, to expeditiously and in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of judgment, conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate orders. It is the petitioner’s complaint in this writ petition that without initiating or completing the enquiry as directed by the above judgment of this Court, the 1st respondent is proceeding to consider (in a meeting scheduled on 06-06-2009), the claims of the same members for appointment as managing committee for a fresh term of office. The 1st respondent is yet to consider the composition of the managing committee and is yet to pass orders in respect thereof, under Section.18 of the Wakf Act. No quia timet action or preemptive mandamus need be issued to the 1st respondent which has the statutory discretion to consider the appropriateness of the constitution of the managing committee and the composition thereof. As and when an order is passed by the 1st respondent and the petitioner is aggrieved thereby only, then an action is maintainable. As at present, the writ petition is premature. It is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 5th JUNE 2009 *TSNR