IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24314 of 2010 Between: Mulla Allabakash ..... Petitioner AND The Chief Executive Officer, A.P. Wakf Board, Nampalli, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Arun Kumar The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24314 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in handing over the charge to the petitioner as per rotation system agreed upon between them in respect of Hazrath Sayed Sala Masood Quaji Darga, Singamala Village and Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to see that the charge is handed over to him. I have heard Sri G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Respondent No.3 was appointed as Muthavalli of the abovementioned Darga by the A.P. Wakf Board vide its proceedings dated 25.10.2000. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he and respondent No.2 entered into an agreement for acting as Muzawars of the Darga by rotation system. By proceedings dated 15.07.2010, respondent No.3 authorized the petitioner to render spiritual services in accordance with rule of succession rights for a period of one year from 15.07.2010 as Muzawar. In the said proceedings, respondent No.3 also directed respondent No.2 to handover the charge to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is not handing over the charge in pursuance of the said proceedings of respondent No.3. In my opinion, the dispute raised by the petitioner is confined between himself and his brother. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to force respondent No.2 to handover the charge. The petitioner is entitled to avail the common law remedies available to him for enforcement of the purported agreement between him and respondent No.2. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.31099 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.09.2010 ES