THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.21101 of 2011 Date:17th November, 2011 Between: Syed Muqtadar Yousuf S/o.Mr.Syed Afsar Pasha ..... Petitioner AND A.P. State Wakf Board, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Office at Razzaq Manzil, Haj House, Nampally, Hyderabad & Ors. .....Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.21101 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Syed Muqtadar Yousuf seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess him from the Mulgi bearing No.5-2-83/2, situated at Jambagh, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad, is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the Mulgi bearing No.5-2- 83/2 situated at Jambagh, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad. According to him, his father took the premises on lease and after the death of this father, he continues to be in occupation of the premises paying the rents. He submitted a representation, dated 18.02.2011, to the 1st respondent to recognize him as tenant of the premises. There being no action on the said representation, he field Writ Petition No.8410 of 2011 seeking direction to the respondents to consider his representation, dated 18.02.2011. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 31.03.2011. Relevant portion of the said order reads as hereunder: “After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of the aforementioned representation filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.” Pursuant to the direction given in the above said writ petition, the 1st respondent issued notice, dated 20.05.2011, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the Inspector Auditor Wakfs, Circle Nos.3 & 6, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad. Apprehending dispossession without following the due process of law, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 02.08.2011. An order of status quo has also been granted on the even date in WPMP No.25684 of 2011. 4. One Abdul Habeeb filed WPMP No.29986 of 2011 seeking his impleadment as 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The said WPMP came to be ordered on 08.09.2011. He also moved WVMP No.3470 of 2011 to vacate the status quo order, dated 02.08.2011, passed in WPMP No.25684 of 2011. 5. The respondents 1 and 3 filed counter affidavits. 6. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that the request of the petitioner for transfer of tenancy rights has been rejected. It is further stated that the Mulgi bearing No.5-2-83/2 in occupation of the petitioner has been constructed illegally on graves. 7. The counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent in brief is: The Wakf Board conducted enquiry and found that the petitioner has constructed Mulgi bearing No.5-2-83/2 by occupying a part of the area of the grave yard. Various other contentions have been stated in the counter-affidavit and they are not required to be detailed in view of the order proposed to be passed. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel of A.P. State Wakf Board appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 9. A fact remains that the petitioner is in possession of the Mulgi bearing No.5-2-83/2, situated at Jambagh, TrooP Bazar, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent considered the representation of the petitioner and refused to grant tenancy in his favour and directed him to vacate the premises by issuing notice, dated 20.05.2011. The petitioner without issuing a reply to the notice, rushed to this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The very conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court without issuing reply cannot be appreciated. Be that as it may, since the 1st respondent has already issued notice directing the petitioner to vacate the premises, the 1st respondent has to follow the due process of law in evicting the petitioner from the premises. 10. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel to it, the status quo order granted on 02.08.2011 in WPMP No.25684 of 2011 stands vacated. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:17th November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.21101 of 2011 Date:17th November, 2011