THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31729 of 2010 DT.16.12.2010 Between: Habeeb Mujtaba Al-Idroos … Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer, Razzack Manzil, Haj House Building, Nampally, Hyderabad and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel For Sri D.Krishna Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri M.A.Mukheed The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s personal rights and discharging his spiritual rights as Naib Mutawalli of Darga Khittey Saleheen situated at Darusalam Road, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit, the petitioner has narrated the facts pertaining to his alleged appointment as Naib Mutawalli by the erstwhile Nizam- VIII. A person, by name, Syed Hamid Hussaini, filed W.P.No.17374 of 1995, which was disposed of by this Court on 19.11.2006, wherein the petitioner’s appointment as Naib Mutawalli by the then Nizam was accepted. However, in W.A.No.1439 of 1996 filed against the said order, a Division Bench of this Court relegated the petitioner to the A.P.Wakf Tribunal, in view of his facing charges. The Division Bench further directed that status quo shall be maintained pending disposal of the suit to be filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed a suit before the A.P.Wakf Tribunal, which is stated to be pending. The petitioner was removed from the office of Naib Mutawalli by respondent No.1-Board by order, dated 31.12.1997. The said order was questioned in Appeal No.12 of 1998 before the A.P.Wakf Tribunal. The said appeal was allowed by order, dated 03.01.2002, and the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry and passing of an order. In the said order, the A.P.Wakf Tribunal directed that insofar as management of the wakf institution is concerned, status quo as on that day shall be maintained. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed on the fact that the enquiry before respondent No.1 is not yet completed and the same is still pending. At the hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Standing Counsel that a Managing Committee was constituted for administering the affairs of the wakf institution and that the said Managing Committee has filed O.S.No.4262 of 2010, wherein it has also filed I.A.No.1023 of 2010, in which, the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad has granted an ad interim injunction against the petitioner herein restraining him from interfering with the day-to-day functions of the Managing Committee. The learned Standing Counsel also brought to my notice that the petitioner filed similar writ petition during the previous year i.e., W.P.No.28572 of 2009, and after obtaining an interim order, he has withdrawn the said writ petition, which was dismissed as such by order, dated 31.05.2010. In my opinion, this writ petition is wholly misconceived. When the suit is pending before the A.P.Wakf Tribunal, the petitioner is entitled to move appropriate applications before it. Instead, he appears to be in the habit of filing writ petitions and the fact that he has filed a writ petition earlier and withdrew the same shows that he is indulging in abuse of process of Courts. If the petitioner feels that interim orders of status quo granted by this Court and the A.P.Wakf Tribunal are not being complied with by respondent No.1, it shall be open to him to initiate appropriate steps in that regard. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40343 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 16.12.2010. VGB