Dismissed

Mr. Syed Ameer Ahmed v. The Telangana State Wakf Board

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023WP/20161/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the inaction of the Telangana State Wakf Board in appointing a Masjid committee was dismissed. The court held the petitioner ineligible for appointment as President of the Managing Committee because he was not an inhabitant of the area where the Waqf institution is situated, as per the relevant Regulations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without costs.

Mr. Syed Ameer Ahmed Vs The Telangana State Wakf Board — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEI\4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 20161 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mr. Syed Ameer Ahmed, S/o late Syed Shabbir Ahmed, Aged about^{52 years,} Occ. Business, Rl/o H. No.9-12-410/A/1 , Langer House, Hyderabad, Telangana state.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Haj House' Nampally' Hyderabad

¶13

...RES',NDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^lndiapraying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^frled therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased to issue appropriate writ order, or direction more^particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDA[/US declaring the^{inaction of the Respondentin not} considering the representations dated^25-10-2021 ,'^{16-02-2022, 11-03-2022 and} 13-04-2022, for appointment of Masjid committee in^{respectof Qutub Shahi} Masjid, Papi Reddy^guda, Shadnagar, Ranga^{Reddy Districtas illegal, arbitrary} and contrary to law.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in^the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Courtmaybe pleased to} direct the Respondent to consider the^{representationdated 25-10-2021,} 16-02-2022, 11-03-2022 and 13-04-2022^for appointment^{of Masjidcommitteein} respect of Qutub Shahi Masjid, Papi Reddy Guda, Shadnagar,^{R.R.District in the} interest of^justice.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.A.QUADEER Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI FARHAN^{AZAM KHAN,}

¶17

SC FOR WAQF BOARD

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMI]YENI SUDHEER KUMAR \VRIT PETITION No.20161 of 2023

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petit,ioner and Mr. F-arhan Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board appearing lor the respondenL.

¶22

'2. This Writ Pctition is hled see tcing a u,rit of Mandamus to dcclare thc action of the respondents in not consiclcring the represcntations, dated 25.I0.2O21, 16.O2.2022, 1 1 .03.2022 and 13.01.2022, submitted by the petitioner. for appoinring rhe Masjid Committee in respect of 'Qutub Shahi Masjid', Papi Rcddy Guda, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶23

Through the said Lhe represen tarions, rhe petitioner made a request for constitution of Managing Committee of the subjcct institution by including his nalne and to appoint him as President of the said Managing Comrrittee. In terms of the Regulation 5 of the Telangana State^lMaqf Managing Committee (Constitutions, Functions and Duties) R,:gulations, 2009 (tor short, 'the Regulations, 2009 J, the Managing Committee tor a Waqf institution may be constituted by approving the panel unanimously selected by the Mussalies and certified by the Inspector Auditor of the Board. In terms of Regulation 7 of th= Regulations, 2009, elected office bearers and Members of the Managing Committee consisting of

¶24

I I

¶25

)

¶26

Mussalies borne on register of Musszrlies of the^{Waq[ instrtution} concerned. In order to become Mttssah^of the^{partrcular Waqf} institution, the said Mussali shall be inhabitant of^{the area,where} the Waqf institution is situated.

¶27

From the above, it is clear that it is only^{the Mutawallies,} who are inhabitants of the area, in^{s'hichthe Waqf institutionis} situated, are entitled to be selected /^{appointedas Member of the} Managing Committec. The^{petitioner hcrein is a resident of Lunger} House, Hyderabad, whereas thc^subjcct institution^{is situated at} Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶28

From the above, it is clcar that the^{petitioner is not} inhabitant of the area in^{which the Waqf institutionin questionis} situated. Therefore, the^{questionof directing the respondenlsto} consider the representations^{submittedby the petitioner to appoint} him as President of lhe Managing^{Committeedoes not arise. On the} face of admitted facts, the^{petitioner is not eligible for appointmentas} President of the Managing Committee^{of the subject institution.}

¶29

In view of the same, the Writ^{Petition is dismissed'} There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,^{pending in this writ pelition} shall stand closed.

¶31

SD/.8. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶32

To, 1 One CC to SRI^{M.A.QUADEER, Advocate [OPUC]} . ^ - 2 5n; cc^{io Srii FAnnnrlnznr'i r+rnN, si FoR Wnor aoRao [oPUC]} 3 Two CD^CoPies BSR GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:^1210912023

/a.:, ii f ir'.T ts O
. rir. ?!$
:) t
-'l
\ i,

¶37

ORDER

¶38

WP.No.2O161^{of 2023}

¶39

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETI]'ION'} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶40

Mr. Syed Ameer Ahmed v. The Telangana State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Syed Ameer Ahmed v. The Telangana State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Usha Sree Vs The State of Telangana

Kollu Satyanarayana Vs Union of India

Indira Dochania, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs. Vs the State of Tg.,Revenue,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

Parapally Nagaraju Vs State of Telangana

Rajam(Kalal)Lakshmaiah, Medak Dist., and 30 Otrs. Vs the Dist.Collector, Medak Dist., and 2 Otrs.

Y. Narsimha Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana