Telangana High Court
Mohammed Akif Safvan vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 10 September, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.No. 38834 of 2022
Between:
Mohammed Akif Safvan
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.07.2023
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
_________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
SN,J
WP_38834_2022
2
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No. 38834 of 2022
% 18.07.2023
Between:
# Mohammed Akif Safvan
..... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr Mirza Nisar Ahmed
Baig
^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 : G.P. for Home
^ Counsel for respondent No.2: G.P. for Minority Admn.
^ Standing Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr Abu Akram
? Cases Referred:
1. (1996) 6 ALD 661 (DB)
2. 1998 SCC 81
SN,J
WP_38834_2022
3
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No. 38834 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home, learned Government Pleader for Minorities and Mr Abu Akram, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent - waqf board.
2. This writ petition is filed to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing F.No.07/HYD/C/2018/Z-1, dated 06.08.2022 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Waqf Board as highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, infringing of petitioners fundamental and legal rights apart from violative of Waqf Act, 1995, Andhra Pradesh Waqf Managing Committee (Constitution, Functions and Duties) Regulations,2009, action of the respondents in constituting the committee through impugned proceedings is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner is regular mussalli (prayer offerer) at Jamia Masjid, Mallepally, which is a registered Wakf Institution, being maintained and managed by a committee appointed by the Telangana Wakf Board from time to time.
SN,J WP_38834_2022 4
b) H.No.11-3-912 is the Jamia Masjid, Mallepally, Hyderabad which is a registered and notified waqf property, and the same is published in A.P Gazette No.32-A, dated 30.08.1984 at Pages No.24 and 25 at Sl.No. 1772 covering an extent of 1470 Sq.Yrds., its attached properties are a house, three mulgies, tin shed and open land admeasuring 8200 Sq.Yds., bearing Municipal Nos.11-3-913/1 to 916/1, situated at Mouzzampura, Mallepally, Hyderabad.
c) The petitioner applied for the copy of Muntakab, Gazette and other documents i.e. the (a) Proceedings, dated 28.02.2018, (b) Boards Resolution No.1209, dt.22.06.2021,
(c) Representation dated 17.01.2022, (d) Note orders of Hon'ble Chairperson, Telangana State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, (e) Boards Resolution No.26, dt.23.07.2022 and Orders of the Hon'ble Chairperson, Telangana State Wakf Board, Hyderabad but they were not made available to the petitioner except the proceedings bearing F.No.07/HYD/C/2018/Z-1, 06.08.2022 through RTI Act issued by Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Wakf Board, Hyderabad.
SN,J WP_38834_2022 5
d) The Mosque is being managed by the Committee from a long time, but the Management of the earlier committees were not up to the mark, the Mussalies of the Mosque, the Wakf Institution was suffering a lot due to inbuilt politics, hidden agendas of the office bearers, which were brought into the notice of respondents herein, but nothing concrete was done to avoid making the Wakf Institution and Musallies to suffer.
e) The Managing committee was constituted for a period of (3) years under Section 18 of Wakf Act, 1995 through Proceedings bearing F.No.07/HYD/C/2018/2-1, dated 28.02.2018 under the Presidentship of Mr. Mohammed Abdul Jabbar accompanied by (8) office bearers, whose term came to an end on 27.01.2021.
f) After expiry of the earlier committee, a new committee was appointed unanimously by the Board's Resolution and Mr. Gulam Ahmed Pasha was appointed as President of the Committee accompanied by (10) other office bearers. It's so happened, the few members of the committee resigned from the office and a vacuum was created. The Wakf Board without SN,J WP_38834_2022 6 any powers included (3) new names of the persons in the Committee, which resulted in filing of a Writ Petition bearing W.P No.9431 of 2018, and the High Court passed an Interim Order by deleting added names and the said Writ Petition is still pending adjudication. The term of the committee came to an end after (2) years.
g) That being so, the petitioner filed a representation on 20.06.2020 addressing respondent No.3, requesting the office to consider the names of locality people, who are residents of Mozzampura, Mallepally, Hyderabad, because earlier the committee members were non-residents of Mozzampura, Mallepally, Hyderabad and the supervision was not proper and appropriate due to numerous reasons, in which the main reason was that they were not residing in the locality and unable to attend the (5) time prayers regularly. This was betraying the management of the mosque. Subsequently, another representation was also made by the Thowliath Committee, Jama-e-Masjid on 19.02.2021.
h) Once again Thowliath Committee, Jama-e-Masjid made an application on 17.01.2022 accompanied by letter dated 17.01.2022 of sitting Member of Parliament recommending to SN,J WP_38834_2022 7 appoint the Committee containing the names mentioned in the said letter.
i) The respondents should not have acted upon the letter given by the Member of Parliament and should have not come under the influence of the letter.
j) As per the Wakf Act, 1995 and as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Wakfs Managing Committee (Constitution, Functions and Duties) Regulations 2009, when more than one panel of committee are coming forward for their appointment as committees, the Wakf Board has to conduct an election, instead of appointing the committees, the impugned proceedings dated 06.08.2022 are issued by the 3rd respondent which is uncalled for and in clear violation of Wakf Act and Andhra Pradesh Wakfs Managing Committee (Constitution, Functions and Duties) Regulations 2009.
k) The present committee constituted by the Board is not following the provisions of law or following the due process of law. It has been clearly stated in the impugned proceedings that the Wakf Board has received a representation on 17.01.2022 and they have appointed the present committee SN,J WP_38834_2022 8 which is highly illegal and arbitrary and cannot subsist the test of time. Hence, this writ petition
4) The respondents filed counter filed and the relevant portion at para 11 reads as under:
11. It is respectfully submitted that in reply to para Nos. 11&12, the respondent No. 3 has put up all the material papers before the Board for the appointment of Managing Committee Jamia Masjid, Mzarampurs, Mallegally, Hyderabad. The Board vide its resolution No. 26 dated 23-07-2022 has considered all the material papers placed before them and finally unanimously resolved to constitute the managing committee under the President ship of Janab Mohammed Salvem Ahmed and 6 others and ordered to issue the proceedings. As per the resolution No. 26, dated 23-07-2022 the respondent No. 3 has issued proceedings No. 07/Hvd/C/2018/2-1, dated 06-
08-2022, the said proceedings were issued by following due process of law.
PERUSED THE RECORD:
5. The Agenda vide H.No.07/HYD/C/2018/Z-1, pertaining to Board Resolution No.26, dated 23.07.2022, reads as under:
SN,J WP_38834_2022 9 TELANGANA STATE WAQF BOARD Razzak Manzil, Haj House Building, Nampally, Hyderabad F.No.07/HYD/C/2018/Z-1 :: AGENDA ::
Sub: TSWB, Hyd. - Managing Committee Sction -
Hyderabad City, Asifnagar Mandal - Mallepally - Jame Mouzzarmura Constitution of Managing Committee - Matter placed before the Board - regarding.
Ref: 1. This Office proceedings of even No., dated 28.02.2018.
2. Board's Resolution No.1209, dated 22.06.2021.
3. Representation from Sri Asaduddin Owaisi, Hon'ble, MP, Hyderabad, dated 17.01.2022.
4. Note orders of the Hon'ble Chairperson, TSWB, Hyderabad.
*** The Waqf institution namely Jame Masjid situated at Mouzzampura Mallepally, Hyderabd is a registered and notified Waqf published in A.P.Gazettee No.32-A, dated 30.08.1984 at page No.24 & 25 at Sl.No.1772 covering an extent of 1470.7 sq. yards.
In the ref. 1st cited, this office has constituted the Managing Committee for a period of (3) years U/s. 18 of Waqf Act, 1995 under the Presidentship of Janab Alhaj Mohammed Abdul Jabbar and (8) others.
In the ref.2nd cited, the Board has unanimously resolved to constitute the Managing Committee for a period of (2) years under the Presidentship of Janab Gulam Ahmed Pasha and (10) others.
In the ref. 3rd cited, it has been represented before this office stating that the Towliath Committee of SN,J WP_38834_2022 10 Jama Masjid, Mouzzampura, Mallepally, Hyderabad has expired on 28.2.2021 and requested to constituted a New Managing Committee consisting of following office bearers:
1. Janab Mohammed Saleem Ahmed - President
2. Janab Iftequar Qureshi - Vice President
3. Janab Syed Ikram Ali - Secretary
4. Janab S.A.Shareef - - Treasurer
5. JanabAkbar Shareef - Member
6. Janab M.A.Mateen - Member
7. JanabMasood Junaidi - - Member The matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chairperson who passed orders vide ref. 4th cited to place the same before the Board.
Hence, the matter is placed before the Board for taking appropriate decision."
6. The Member of Jama Masjid i.e. Mohammed Faiyaz Siddiqui addressed a letter dated 20.06.2020 to the Chairman/CEO, Waqf Board, Hyerabad, which reads as under:
"Dear Sir, Sub: Regarding - Mouzam Pura Badi Masjid Malepally proposed new committee panel.
With reference to the captioned subjected, I would like to bring to your kind notice that Mouzam Pura Masjid Committee Malepally President Mr. (Late) Abdul Jabbar has expired in the last week of Ramadan. This committee was formed with 11 members after elections SN,J WP_38834_2022 11 held in 1998, thereafter due to the death and resignation of some its members it has reduced to 4 member's presently. Hence these 4 members does not constitute the quorum of the committee and are not actively involved in the proceedings of the committee due to their ill health.
Henceforth, to ensure smooth functioning of the Masjid activities you are requested to remove the existing 4 members and form a committee with the new panel members (enclosed herewith). The panel consist of members who are born and bought up in Malepally and having expertise in various field of works, thereby ensuring smooth and frictionless functioning of day to day activities of the Masjid. Therefore, I humbly requests you to accept the proposed new committee panel.
7. The Member of Parliament Sri Asaduddin Owaisi, (Lok Sabha) addressed a letter dated 17.01.2022 to the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Waqf Board, Hyderabd, which reads as under:
"Sir, Sub:- Towliath Committee Jama Masjid, Mallepally - Extension of period - reg.
I would like to bring to your kind notice that Towliath Committee of the Jama Masjid, Moazzampura SN,J WP_38834_2022 12 (Mallepally), Hyderabad has expired on 28th February, 2021.
Hence, I am herewith submitting the list of names for the constitution of new managing committee and request your goodself to kindly constitute the same and do the needful at the earliest.
S.No. Name of the Member Designation
01. Mohammed Saleem Ahmed President
02. Iftequar Qureshi Vice President
03. Syed Ikram Ali Secretary
04. S.A.Shareef Treasurer
05. Akbar Shareef Member
06. M.A.Mateen Member
07. Masood Junaidi Member DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION THE FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE ARE AS UNDER:
8. The Waqf institution namely Jame Masjid situated at Mouzzampura, Mallepally, Hyderabad is a registered and notified Waqf published in A.P. Gazettee No.32-A, dated 30.08.1984 at page No.24 and 25 at Sl.No.1772 covering an extent of 1470.7 sq. yards.
9. Vide representation dated 17.01.2022 of Member of Parliament, it has been represented before Telangana State Waqf Board that the Towliath Committee of Jamia Masjid, Mouzzampura, Mallepally, Hyderabad has expired on SN,J WP_38834_2022 13 28.02.2011 and requested to constitute the New Managing Committee under the Presidentship of Janab Mohammed Saleem Ahmed and (6) others. The Board vide its Resolution No.26, dated 23.07.2022 unanimously resolved to grant extension of the Managing Committee under the Presidentship of Janab Mohammed Saleem and six others for a further period of two years duly regularizing the gap period. In pursuance of the Boards Resolution dated 23.07.2022 the Managing Committee of Jamia Masjid situated at Mouzzampura, Mallepally, Hyderabad is extended for further period of two years duly regularizing the gap period under the Presidenship of Janab Mohammed Saleem Ahmed and six others, under Section 18 of Waqf Act, 1995 consisting of Janab Mohammed Saleem Ahmed and six others.
10. Regulation 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Wakfs Managing Committee (Constitution, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009 read as under :
"Regulation - 5 : Method of Constitution of Managing Committee :
The Managing Committee for a Wakf/Wakf Institution may be constituted in the following manner.
SN,J WP_38834_2022 14
i) Approving the panel unanimously selected by the Musaillies and certified by the Inspector Auditor of the Board.
ii) In the absence of unanimous panel through election from among the Musaillies of the Wakf/Wakf Institution conducted under the control and supervision of Inspector of Auditor of the Board".
11. A bare perusal of the averments of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition indicates that the Petitioner herein is a regular Mussialli at Jamiya Masjid, Mallepally which is a Registered Wakf Institution being maintained and managed by Committee appointed by the Telangana Wakf Board from time to time and therefore this Court opines that the Petitioner herein has locus to file the present writ petition and is an interested person in the administration of the subject Masjid as per Sec.3(k)(i) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (prayer offerer).
12. A bare perusal of the material documents filed by the Petitioner herein in support of the present writ petition clearly indicates that vide detailed representation dt. 20.06.2020, SN,J WP_38834_2022 15 which has also been acknowledged by the inward section of the office of the 3rd Respondent herein, a list of 11 members was submitted to Telangana State Wakf Board, wherein the Petitioner's name figures at Sl.No.9, and a request is made to accept the said proposed new committee panel to ensure smooth functioning of the subject Masjid activities. The record further evidences another letter subsequent to the letter dt. 20.06.2020, which is letter dated 19.02.2021, which has been addressed by Jama Masjid, Mozampura, Mallepally seeking extension of Towliyath Committee which has also been acknowledged by the 3rd Respondent herein on 22.02.2021. The record also evidence's the letter dated 17.01.2022 of the Member of Parliament (Loksabha) Sri Asaduddin Owaisi addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Waqf Board, Hyderabad and a bare perusal of the same indicates a list of seven names for the constitution of new Managing Committee and the impugned proceedings dated 06.08.2022 of the 3rd respondent herein indicate a committee having been constituted with all the seven names placed in the SN,J WP_38834_2022 16 same position as suggested in the letter dated 17.01.2022 of the Member of Parliament.
13. A bare perusal of Regulation 5, pertaining to the method of constitution of Managing Committee clearly indicates that in the absence of the unanimous panel the 3rd Respondent has to conduct elections, but however in the present case though there are two letters on record dt. 20.06.2020 and 19.02.2021 clearly indicating two different panels yet the 3rd Respondent herein gave a goby to the method of constitution of Managing Committee and issued the impugned proceedings contrary to the procedure mandated under the relevant Regulations.
14. A bare perusal of the Agenda pertaining to the passing of the Resolution No.26, dated 23.07.2022 which was the very basis for issuing the present impugned proceedings dt. 06.08.2022 by the 3rd respondent herein vide F.No.07/Hyderabad/C/ 2018/Z- 1 (referred to and extracted above), clearly indicates at Ref. No.3 that a representation from Member of Parliament, Hyderabad, dated 17.01.2022, had been SN,J WP_38834_2022 17 received which recommended for constitution of a new Managing Committee giving list of 7 names and the said recommendation was placed before the Board for taking appropriate decision and the same led to the passing of the impugned proceedings finalizing the very same seven names in the said Managing Committee. This Court opines that the 3rd Respondent herein ignored the relevant rules and passed the impugned proceedings constituting a new Managing Committee as per Sec.18 of the Wakf Act, 1995 for a period of 2 years which is contrary to Rule 5 of the Regulations, 2009.
15. A bare perusal of Sec.18 of the Wakf Act, 1995 clearly indicates that the Board has to be satisfied that it is necessary to establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas, committees for the supervision of Wakfs. It cannot be the satisfaction of the Member of the Parliament that will decide the necessity to establish a committee and who shall be the members of the committee. The Board alone has to decide and not any outside agency. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent SN,J WP_38834_2022 18 orally contends that the said recommendation of the Member of the Parliament cannot be faulted with since the said Member of the Parliament happened to be the member of the Board though such a plea is not taken any where in any of the 12 paras of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent herein. This Court opines that the said contention is not tenable in view of the fact that the Board as defined under the Wakf Act, 1995 is a body and not an individual and therefore the recommendation of a single individual, who happened to be a Member of Parliament alone cannot be the basis to issue the impugned proceedings.
16. Counsel for the 3rd Respondent placed reliance on the following judgments :-
i) The judgment dated 26.10.1998 of the Apex Court reported in (1998) SCC 81 in Whirlpool Corporation V. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, in particular paras 14 to 19.
ii) The judgment dated 23.11.2010 of the Apex Court reported in CDJ 2010 SC 1069 in Board of Wakf, West SN,J WP_38834_2022 19 Bengal v Anis Fatma Begum and another, in particular para 10 of the said judgment.
iii) The judgment dated 28.10.2021 of the Apex Court reported in CDJ 2021 SC 908 in Rashid Wali Beg v Farid Pindari and others, in particular para 38 of the said judgment.
and contends that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and the remedy for the Petitioner is to approach the Wakf Tribunal constituted U/s.83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. This Court opines that the reasoning given in the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the 3rd respondent do not apply to the facts of the case.
17. This Court opines that Para 13 of the judgment reported in (1998) SCC 81 in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai applies to the facts of the present case and the same reads as under :
"13. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would SN,J WP_38834_2022 20 not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged."
18. In view of the fact that the very mandatory procedure prescribed under Regulation 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Wakfs Managing Committee (Constitution, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009, has been violated and the impugned proceedings dated 06.08.2022 vide F.No.07/Hyderabad/C/ 2018/Z-1 had been issued by the 3rd Respondent solely referring to the Board's Resolution No.26, dt. 23.07.2022 which had been passed on the basis of the representation received from Member of Parliament, Hyderabad Sri Asaduddin Owisi, dated 17.01.2022, this Court opines that the Writ Petition is maintainable as per para 13 of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to and extracted above. This Court opines the Rule of Exclusion of Jurisdiction by availability of SN,J WP_38834_2022 21 alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and in appropriate case writ Court can entertain the Writ Petition without subjecting the Petitioners to avail alternative remedy, and in the present case this Court opines that the appointment of the present Managing Committee vide orders impugned dt. 06.08.2022 vide F.No.07/Hyderabad/C/ 2018/Z-1 of the 3rd Respondent is admittedly made under political influence and the same is per se illegal, and therefore the Petitioner herein need not be relegated to avail alternative remedy. This Court on perusal of the record opines that the order impugned dt. 06.08.2022 vide F.No.07/ Hyderabad/C/2018/Z-1, has been passed without independent application of mind by the 3rd Respondent Authority. This Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned proceedings dated 06.08.2022 by the 3rd respondent which clearly indicates the constitution of committee under Section 18 of the Wakf Act, 1995 with all the seven names placed in the same position as suggested in the letter dated 17.01.2022 of the Member of Parliament clearly evidences that the desire of the Member of Parliament prevailed and the said Act itself SN,J WP_38834_2022 22 is enough to destroy the credibility behind the impugned order.
19. In a judgment of a Division Bench of High Court at Hyderabad, reported in 1996 (2) ALD 661, dt. 03.04.1996 in W.A.No.287/1996 and W.P.M.P.No.3276/1996, Intezami Committee Mazid-E- Osmania, rep. by its General Secretary, v. A.P. State Wakf Board, rep. by its Secretary and Anr., in identical circumstances observed at paras 3 and 4 as under :
It is, however, shown to us that a Member of the Legislative Assembly, who represented Kodad Constituency, addressed a letter to the Secretary, A. P. Wakf Board stating inter alia, "it is requested to approve the list enclosed and issue orders for Osmania Mazjid Managing Committee, Huzumagar, Nalgonda District''. Although the letter is addressed to the Secretary, A.P. Wakf Board, it went into the hands of the Minister for Home, Government of Andhra Pradesh who endorsed the above stating, "please examine and committee may be nominated ". The letter also received some sort of approval by one Katakam Sattiah Gowd who, it appears, was associated with Telugu Desam Party. Names, as proposed for the offices to which Sri Mustafa, Sri Jan Mohammed and others are shown to have been appointed by the Special SN,J WP_38834_2022 23 Officer, are found mentioned in the letter of the Member of the Legislative Assembly Sri V. Chandra Rao. (3) The above appointment of the ad hoc committee is purportedly made under Section 18 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The same reads as follows:
" (1) The Board may, whenever it considers necessary, establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas committees for the supervision of wakfs.
(2) The constitution, functions and duties and the term of office of such committees shall be determined from time to time by the Board.
Provided that it shall not be necessary for the members of such committees to be members of the Board".
A mere reading of the above is enough to convince that the Board has to be satisfied that it is necessary to establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas committees for the supervision of wakfs. It cannot be the satisfaction of a Member of the legislative Assembly or a Minister in the Government of the State that will decide the necessity to establish a committee and who shall be the members of the committee. It is obvious and ancillary to the power of the Board to appoint committees, that it is SN,J WP_38834_2022 24 required to be decided not by any outside agency or person but by the Board. The Special Officer who exercised the powers of the Board thus could decide on his own whether it was/is necessary to establish the above ad hoc committee and who would/shall be the members of the committee. He could not have decided to appoint an Ad hoc Managing Committee because a certain Member of the Legislative Assembly wanted him to do so or because a Minister in the Government of the State endorsed the recommendations of the Member of the Legislative Assembly. One of the settled principles of law which Lord Esher M. R. stated in The Queen on the Prosecution of Richard Westbrook in the late 19th Century (1890) 24 Queens Bench Division 371, "if people who have to exercise a public duty by exercising their discretion take into account matters which the Courts consider not to be proper for the guidance of their discretion, then in the eye of the law they have not exercised their discretion' 'has found very many eminent approvals including that of the Supreme Court of India in S. R. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1) AIR 1979 SC 49 and it is stated in the later, "the influence of extraneous matters will be undoubted where the authority making the order has admitted their influence". (4) The instant case, in our opinion, will squarely fall within the rule aforementioned particularly when the SN,J WP_38834_2022 25 influence of the Member of the Legislative Assembly and the Minister in appointing the Ad hoc Managing Committee is writ large in the facts that (1) all those named in the letter of the Member of the Legislative Assembly are appointed as members of the ad hoc committee and are placed in the same position as the letter suggested and (2) in any event there is clear proof that the Special Officer made no exercise of his own to find out whether there was any requirement to appoint an Adhoc Managing Committee. It is a gross case, in our opinion, in which the order issued by the Special Officer is wholly unauthorised and as it is stated by Viscount Haldane in Shearer v. Shields, (1914) AC 808, " A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind; he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of his mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly, and in that sense innocently". We are constrained in the instant case to observe that the Special Officer has completely abdicated his functions to the desire of a Member of the Legislative Assembly and the Minister of the Government of the State, an act which in itself is enough to destroy the credibility behind the impugned order.
SN,J WP_38834_2022 26
20. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances and the view taken by the Apex Court at para 13 in the judgment reported in (1998) SCC 81, dt.26.10.1998 in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (referred to and extracted above), and also the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Intezami Committee Mazid-E-Osmania, rep. by its General Secretary, v. A.P. State Wakf Board, rep. by its Secretary and Anr., reported in (1996) 6 ALD 661 (DB), the present Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for and the impugned proceedings dated 06.08.2022 vide F.No.07/Hyd /C/2018/Z-1, is set aside. The 3rd Respondent is directed to initiate steps to appoint new committee U/s.18 of the Act, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, as per Regulation 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Wakfs Managing Committee (Constitution, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009, and till such committee is appointed under Section 18 of The Waqf Act, 1995, the respondent Waqf Board is directed to take direct SN,J WP_38834_2022 27 control of Jamia Majid, Mallepally and ensure smooth functioning of the subject institution as per Section 65 of the Waqf Act, 1995, only to ensure the completion of the exercise as stipulated by this Court for the said period of four months. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 18.07.2023 Note: L.R. copy to be marked b/o kvrm