IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1708 of 2001 Between: The Kurnool Muslim Minorities Association, Kurnool, rep., by its Secretary Mohd. Akram. … Appellant AND The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary Minorities Welfare (Wakf) Dept., Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondents 2&3: Sri S.M. Subhani Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1708 of 2001 JUDGMENT:- (Per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J) The appellant, which claims to be an association representing Kurnool Muslim Minorities, filed the present writ appeal against order dated 28.08.2001 in WP.No.2548 of 2001, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by it questioning G.O.Ms.No.138, Minorities Welfare (Wakf-I) Department, dated 17.07.2000 issued by respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 was in occupation of a wakf property belonging to Sultani Mosque by running a petrol bunk in Kurnool Town. On a notice given by respondent No.3 to vacate the said property, respondent No.4 approached respondent No.2 to allot an alternative site in Sy.No.383/2-A-1 admeasuring 200’ x 200’ to enable him to shift the petrol bunk to the said site. In principle, respondent No.2 agreed for such alternative allotment and at his instance, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.138 dated 17.07.2000 according permission to respondent No.3 to sell the land to respondent No.4 at the prevailing rate. The appellant questioned the said G.O by filing WP.No.2548 of 2001. The learned Single Judge, after perusing the respective pleadings and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present writ appeal. At the hearing, Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the G.O. impugned in the writ petition is in contravention of the provisions of Section 51 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The learned counsel further submitted that the sale by private negotiations is contrary to the interests of the Wakf and therefore the impugned G.O. is void. Having carefully perused the reasons contained in the order of the learned Single Judge, we do not find reasons to differ with the same. One other reason for our disinclination to grant relief to the appellant association is that it failed to raise proper pleadings regarding its locus to maintain the writ petition. Though an averment is made in para 10 of the affidavit that the appellant is a registered minority association, no details regarding its registration have been mentioned. The appellant also failed to give any details about the number of members it comprises and particulars. Though the appellant averred in the affidavit that it was interested in safeguarding the interests of the Wakf properties, it has not furnished any material to substantiate this averment by giving details of the instances of undertaking such activities. The law is well settled that unless an individual or an association establishes the locus to question the action taken by the State or its instrumentalities, a writ petition cannot be entertained as a matter of course. In the absence of the relevant particulars given by the appellant in the writ petition showing its abiding interest in the Wakf, the very writ petition itself is not maintainable. For the abovementioned reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. However, we grant liberty to the appellant to raise a dispute under Section 83 of the Act. If such a dispute is raised, the Wakf Tribunal shall be at liberty to entertain the same, subject to its being satisfied about the locus of the appellant to raise such a dispute. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ appeal, WAMP.No.3441 of 2001 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. T. MEENA KUMARI, J C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.02.2009 ES THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1708 of 2001 Date: 04.02.2009