IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1828 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16/12/2008 in WP NO : 4970 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Habeeb Mubtaba Al-Idroos, S/o. Late Habeeb Jafar Al-Idroos, R/o. H.No. 20-4-448, Fathe Darwazaq, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Razzack Manzil, Haj House Building, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant : MR.P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1828 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Sri Abdul Najeeb Khan, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Wakf Board. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 16-12-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4970 of 2008. 3. Appellant is petitioner and respondent is respondent in the writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. Petitioner is Naib Mutawalli of Wakf institution, “Darga Khittey Saleheen” situated at Darusalam, Nampally, Hyderabad. Basing on certain allegations levelled against the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and eventually the appellate authority i.e., the Wakf Tribunal, remanded the matter to the Wakf Board for conducting enquiry, afresh. 6. Be that as it may, even before initiation of enquiry, through the proceedings, dated 28-02-2008, issued under Section 54 (3) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for brevity “the Act”), impugned in the writ petition, the respondent ordered removal of encroachment by the petitioner at Darga, grave yard and attached properties. 7. We cannot go into the merits of the case or express any opinion as to whether the petitioner is an encroacher or not? However, we cannot forget the fact that the proceedings issued against the petitioner went upto the appellate authority and the matter was remanded to the Wakf Board for fresh consideration. 8. As of now, the charges levelled against the petitioner, the resultant enquiry and the consequences thereof shall have to be decided by the Wakf Board. Therefore, even before initiation of enquiry, treating the petitioner as an encroacher is adding something more to the insinuation already attached to the petitioner and raising curtain for a fresh litigation, which, in our considered view, is not desirable. 9. However, the learned single Judge, through the impugned order, dated 16-12-2008, disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal, as provided under Section 54 (4) of the Act, to file a suit and also ordered to maintain status quo for a period of two weeks from the date of the said order to enable the petitioner to obtain appropriate orders from the Wakf Tribunal. 10. No doubt, the Tribunal has power to grant interim orders. But, considerable time will be taken to file an application by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders by the Tribunal, after giving due opportunity to both the parties. Therefore, in order to prevent further consumption of time by the Tribunal in passing orders on the interlocutory application itself, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to maintain status quo pending disposal of the suit being filed by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 11. However, it is clarified that if no suit is filed by the petitioner, as directed above, the respondent can proceed with the matter in accordance with law and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the suit being filed by the petitioner with utmost expedition, preferably on priority basis. 12. With the above observations and modification of the impugned order, dated 16-12-2008, of the learned single Judge, the writ appeal is disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 31-12-2008. Msr THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1828 of 2008 31-12-2008 (Msr)