Allowed

Telangana State Waqf Board, v. Sk. Fareed

Telangana HC28 Aug 2017WA/1187/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ appeals concerning an ambiguous E-tender notification by the Telangana State Wakf Board regarding the auction of religious offering items at a Dargah. The Court modified the Single Judge's order, clarifying that neither decision prevents the Board from auctioning the entrustment of sale of devotees' offerings, while leaving the question of ritual conduct to future pr

What did the court decide?

The order under appeal was modified to clarify that the Court's decisions do not prevent the Wakf Board from auctioning the entrustment of sale of offerings, and the matter of ritual conduct was left

Telangana State Waqf Board, Vs Sk. Fareed — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶3

Writ Appeal Nos.1187 and 1188 of 2017

¶4

Common Judgment: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶5

Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Telangana State Wakf Board and Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners and, with their consent, both the writ appeals are disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶6

The respondents-writ petitioners claim to be the devotees of Hazarath Janpak Shaheed Dargah at Janpahad Village, Nereducherla Mandal, Nalgonda District. They sought a mandamus in W.P.No.1315 of 2017 to declare the action of the Telangana State Wakf Board in issuing ‘E’ procurement tender notice dated 16.12.2016, purporting to auction the offering items of the Dargah, as arbitrary, irrational and without jurisdiction. Thereafter, when the Telangana State Wakf Board sought to award the contract on weekly basis, W.P. No. 14547 of 2017 was filed to quash the same.

¶7

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge set aside the tender notification including entrustment of the rituals either by way of a tender or by nomination; and granted liberty to the Telangana State Wakf Board to invite fresh tenders to conduct public auction of the items whichever permissible, other than those not permissible as declared in the order. The learned Single Judge made it clear that religious performance, in connection with the items referred to in the order, would require the management

¶8

¶9

of the Dargah to make its own arrangements under the supervision of the Telangana State Wakf Board, to fulfill the devotees’ desire and religious faith and customs.

¶10

The items in dispute are some of those referred to in the tender notification, ie (1) Hundi, (2) Neem Tree Hundi, (3) Chirag Bathi, (4) Oodi, (5) Fateha, (6) Thaviz and Pottel Juba, (7) Nimboo and Narial Bandish and (8) Sandal and flower and vehicle fateha. With respect to other items listed between Sl. Nos. 3 and 10 (both inclusive) of the E-tender notification, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel, would fairly state that sale of these items through E-auction is neither the subject matter of the writ petitions nor has the 1^st appellant been interdicted from inviting bids for sale of these items by way of public auction.

¶11

With regards the first two items, ie, Hundi and Neem Tree Hundi, the respondents-writ petitioners have no objection and the Wakf Board is willing, instead of having the hundi collections made through a contractor, to collect the hundi offerings through its own staff, and to credit the proceeds to the account of the Dargah. It is wholly unnecessary for us, therefore, to interfere with the order under appeal with respect to these items except to clarify that the order of the learned Single Judge shall not preclude the 1^st appellant-Wakf Board from collecting the offerings in the Hundi and the Neem Tree Hundi, and to credit the proceeds to the account of the Dargah, by engaging its own employees without putting collection of these offerings to auction.

¶12

The E-tender notification appears to indicate that what was sought to be auctioned was the work of offering items at the

¶13

¶14

Dargah, and not sale of the items offered by the worshippers at the Dargah. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel, would contend, not without justification, that what was put to auction is not the items offered by the devotees at the Dargah, but the religious act of offering the items to the Dargah; and it is for the devotees to choose the person through whom they desire to make these offerings at the Dargah, and they cannot be compelled to make these offering at the Dargah only through a contractor.

¶15

On the other hand, Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Telangana State Wakf Board, would submit that the religious act of offering these items at the Dargah is not being put to auction, and it is only for entrustment of the sale of items, which have already been offered by the devotees at the Dargah, were bids invited from eligible contractors.

¶16

As the E-auction notification is ambiguous, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was justified in setting it aside. Suffice it to make it clear that neither the order now passed by us nor the order under appeal would disable the Telangana State Wakf Board to issue an auction notification afresh, inviting bids for entrusting the sale of the offerings made by devotees at the Dargah, which have been left by the devotees within the premises of the Dargah, to a contractor selected through the e-tender process.

¶17

The question, whether the Telangana State Wakf Board can engage the services of personnel to conduct rituals within the Dargah or whether the devotees can claim unhindered access to the Dargah to perform rituals through persons of their choice, is

¶18

¶19

left open for adjudication in independent legal proceedings as the e-tender notification, in the present case, appears to indicate that auction is being conducted for offering items at the Dargah, and not for entrusting the sale of the offered items to a contractor.

¶20

The order under appeal is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. Both the writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

(J. UMA DEVI, J)
28 th August, 2017
pnb

¶22

¶23

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶24

AND

¶25

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶26

Writ Appeal Nos.1187 and 1188 of 2017

¶27

Date: 28.08.2017

¶28

pnb

¶29

Telangana State Waqf Board, v. Sk. Fareed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Telangana State Waqf Board, v. Sk. Fareed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fareed Ahmed Khan, Vs The State of Telangana

J.Munithippaiah Chetty and Company Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Mahadev Sales Agency a proprietary concern represented Vs The Union Of India rep by General Manager East Coast

B.Sanjeeva Reddy Vs Irrigation Cad(P.W)Dept and 2 Others

J. Rami Reddy and Another Vs Spl.Dy.Collector and Another

The Karur Vysya Bank, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh