This writ appeal challenges the single judge's order upholding the appointment of a mutavalli and setting aside a later appointment of a managing committee. The court affirmed that a mutavalli's appointment bars a managing committee's appointment.
Writ appeal dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO. 788 OF 2007
JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao)
The appellant is 6th respondent in the writ petition, filed this appeal under section 15 of the Letters patent, aggrieved against the orders passed in W P No. 3239 of 2007 dated 25.4.2007 allowing the writ petition at the instance of first respondent herein, where he sought for a writ of mandamus to declare that the action of the A P Wakf Board through its Chief Executive Officer for appointing a managing committee vide proceedings dated 18.12.2005 is bad and illegal.
The brief facts which gave rise to the present proceedings which are not much in dispute are that in respect of the wakf which is in question viz., Fathekhanpet Kalan mosque in Fathekhanpet village, Nellore district, there was a mutavalli by name Mohammed Ali Saheb who died on 23.6.1967. Thereafter the Wakf board was managing the institution. Later the first respondent herein who is son of the original mutavalli filed an application dated 5.10.2004 seeking to appoint him as a mutavalli was a successor of his father . Acting thereon, the Wakf board passed orders dated 22.5.2005 and appointed him as a mutavalli. However, immediately thereafter the very
same A P Wakf Board passed another order on 18.12.2005 appointing the managing committee to the very same wakf. Therefore, both these proceedings were challenged, one by the successor applicant /writ petitioner in W P No. 3239 of 2007 assailing the appointment of the managing committee dated 18.12.2005 and another by the managing committee in W P No. 4571 of 2007 assailing the proceedings dated 22.5.2005 appointing the said successor applicant as mutavalli. The main ground urged on behalf of the successor applicant is to the effect that having regard to employment, he could not immediately file an application and yet Wakf Board having passing an order dated 22.5.2005 appointing him as mutavalli as being sole successor, there could not have been any other proceedings, varying with the very same or appointing managing committee and therefore the other proceedings dated 18.12.2005 appointing managing committee is totally bad, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice also. Whereas the case of the managing committee is to the effect that soon after the death of the original mutavalli on 23.3.1967, the Wakf board took over and managing the institution and therefore the question of recognizing or appointing any mutavalli afresh, does not arise.
Considering those submission in short spectrum, the learned single Judge on perusal of the entire proceedings found that the order dated 22.5.2005 appointing the applicant as mutavalli has remained unassailed , unchallenged and thus it has become final. Further subsequent to
proceedings dated 18.12.2005 are without any notice. Apparently acting at the instance of letter of the local Member of Legislative Assembly dated 12.4.2005 and referring to certain proceeding dated 8.2.2002 which have no relevance nor would have any effect on the applicant’s right as a successor and where once a mutavalli is already appointed, the question of appointing a committee for the purpose of administration, is wholly misconceived. Accordingly, proceedings dated 18.12.2005 were set aside, upholding the order dated 22.5.2005 were and consequently allowed W P no. 3239 of 2007 and dismissed W P no. 4571 of 2007. Hence, this appeal.
On consideration of the submissions made from both the sides which have been made at length, while taking us through the entire record and trying to raise several questions having no relevancy to the actual lis, or narrow conspectus of the question involved, it is to be seen that admittedly there was a mutavalli earlier who died on 23.6.1967 and there is no dispute to the fact that the applicant is his son, however, he could not make his application for which he explained that having regard to the employment elsewhere he could not approach and soon thereafter he filed application dated 5.10.2004 and consequently he was appointed on 22.5.2005. This order having not been challenged or varied with any appropriate proceedings , has become final and conclusive and binding, therefore as rightly found by the learned single Judge the Wakf Board could not have gone back on its
own proceedings dated 22.5.2005 and come out with any fresh approach. It is now well established that as long as there is a mutavalli in respect of a wakf institution, the question of appointment of a managing committee, does not arise. In support, the learned single Judge relied on the principle laid down in V Gangadhararao Vs. K Venkateswara Rao ( AIR 1974 AP 289 ) which reiterates the fact that the question of appointment of a managing committee where mutavalli exists is totally without jurisdiction and is ineffective. Similarly referring to the similar situation which has come up consideration in Intezami Committee Mazid-E-Osmania Vs. A P State Wakf Board (1996 (2) ALD 661 (DB) the Division Bench held that any action by an authority or executive at the instance of acting on some letters of the public representatives would not amount to the proper exercise and hence invalid. Therefore, we are in entire agreement of the observations and findings of the learned single Judge and we do not find any error in the approach of the learned single Judge. Further, we reiterate that the applicant has been duly recognized as mutavalli and said order has become final as such appointment of managing committee is wholly unsustainable.
In view of the same, we do not find any merits in the appeal accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.
________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J
R KANTHA RAO,J
DATE:5-08-2009 TVK
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO. 788 OF 2007
date 5 -08-2009
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appointment of a managing committee is valid when a mutavalli already exists and was duly appointed by the Wakf Board.
Whether the single Judge correctly found that a subsequent appointment of a managing committee varied the final order of mutavalli appointment
Whether action taken by the Wakf Board at the instance of a Member of Legislative Assembly invalidated the appointment of a mutavalli.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V Gangadhararao Vs. K Venkateswara RaoRelied on¶12
V Gangadhararao Vs. K Venkateswara Rao ( AIR 1974 AP 289 ) · Who else cites this
Intezami Committee Mazid-E-Osmania Vs. A P State Wakf BoardRelied on¶12
Intezami Committee Mazid-E-Osmania Vs. A P State Wakf Board (1996 (2) ALD 661 (DB)
Appellant (6th Respondent in WP 3239/2007)
AP Wakf Board
B PRAKASH RAO
R KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
