YUSUF QURESHI Vs. M A RAFAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein and certain other persons were appointed as members of the Andhra Pradesh State Wake Board (for short "the Wakf Board") by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms. 74 Minorities Welfare (Wakf-I) Department, dated 26-8-1994 read with the errata issued on 30-8-1994 in G.O.Ms. No. 75. The members of the Wake-Board elected the petitioner herein as the Chairman under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Wake Act. They assumed charge with effect from 31-8-1994. While so, two writ petitions - W.P. Nos. 16111 and 16122 of 1994 - were filed in this Court challenging their appointments on several grounds. As no interim stay was granted in the writ petitions, they functioned as such till 10-4-1995 when a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitioner, in consequence of which, a Special Officer - respondent No. 1 herein - was appointed. who assumed charge, it appears, on that very day itself. Writ Appeal Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995 were filed by the petitioner herein and the other affected members of the Wake Board, which were allowed by a common judgment after an elaborate hearing by a Division Bench of this Court, of which, one of us, M.N.Rao, J., was a member, on 17-1-1996, the operative portion of which is in the following terms: "For these reasons, upholding the G.Os., impugned in the two writ petitions, we allow Writ Appeal Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995 setting aside the common judgment of the learned Judge in W.P. Nos. 16111 and 16122 of 1994 and dismiss the writ petitioners, in consequence of which, all the appellants in W.A. Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995 will be entitled to function as members of the Wake Board as per the above two H.s. No costs."When the judgment was delivered in the open Court, the counsel for the wake Board, the counsel for the appellants and the learned government pleader were all present.

(2.) Alleging that the respondents herein, apart from willfully disobeying the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court also caused harassment and illegal arrest of the petitioner herein in order to prevent him functioning as the Chairman of the Wake when he asserted his right to function as such, this contempt case was filed. Respondent No. 1, at the relevant time, was the Special Officer of the Wake Board and the second respondent is the Secretary of the Wake Board. Respondents 3 to 9 are police officers, who, it is alleged, had connived with respondents 1 and 2 in preventing the petitioner from discharging his functions and also in causing his illegal arrest.

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it is averred that the counsel for the petitioner by letter dated 17-1-1996 informed respondents 1 and 2 about the judgment of this Court and the petitioner resumed charge as the Chairman of the Wake Board on 18-7-1996 by signing the registers. He also released an official circular No. 1/peshi/Chairman/96 declaring 18-1-1996 as public holiday because of the sudden demise of Sri N. T. Rama Rao, the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. He participated on 18-1-1996 in Uruse Sheriff at Jahangir Peer Darga-e-Hazrat near Shadnagarin his capacity as the Chairman of the Wake Board, The Government of Andhra Pradesh declared 19-1-1996 as a holiday because of the death of Sri N. T. Rama Rao but the Urus celebrations continued in which the petitioner had participated. On 20-1-1996, when the petitioner reached the office of the Wake Board, he was surprised to find some policemen posted there and upon inquiry, he learnt that the fifth respondent, Sri Sharfuddin, Circle Inspector Abides Police Station, posted them there. The petitioner's room (the Chairman's room) in the office was locked and the keys were taken away by the second respondent. When questioned by the petitioner, the second respondent had given evasive replies. The police and the second respondent prevented the petitioner from entering into the office when he tried to open the lock. He waited till 3.00 p.m., on that day but the first respondent did not turn up. Thereafter, he went to the police station at Abids and lodged a complaint with the Circle Inspector regarding the illegal action of the first respondent herein - the Special Officer of the Wake Board. 21-1-1996 was a holiday being Sunday. On the next day i.e., 22-1-1996, when the petitioner reached the Wake Board Office, he still found the Chairman's room locked. When he was waiting at the room of the Secretary, the second respondent, the Inspector of Police, the fifth respondent, came there around 1.30 p.m., and asked him to see the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Sri Mahender Reddy, the fourth respondent. When he met the fourth respondent, the latter after going through the judgment of this Court in W.A. Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995, assured him that appropriate steps would be taken. Even on that day, he could not enter the office because he was prevented by the police. On 23-1-1996, once again the petitioner went to the Wake Board office at 10.00 a.m., but he was again prevented by the police. At 12 noon, he could secure a certified copy of the judgment of this Court in the above writ appeals. He handed over a copy of the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the fourth respondent, who acknowledged the same but the Circle Inspector, the fifth respondent, refused to receive it. At 2.30 p.m., on 23-1-1996, the second respondent while acknowledging the receipt of a copy of the judgment informed the petitioner that the key of the room was with the first respondent but as the latter did not turn up the petitioner having waited there till 4.30 p.m., went home. As the position continued to be the same even on 24-1-1996 when the petitioner went to the office at 10.00 a.m., he got issued a legal notice to the Deputy Commissioner of police, the fourth respondent, as well as the Secretary, Wake Board, the second respondent herein, which was received by the former at 12 noon and the latter at 1.25 p.m. On 24-1-1996 itself, the petitioner was asked to see the Commissioner of Police, the third respondent, at the Police Control Room and accordingly the petitioner met him at 2.30 p.m. When the petitioner informed the third respondent about the judgment of this Court by showing a copy and producing the photographs evidencing his assumption of office as Chairman, he was told that the needful would be done and that he should wait for one more day. He then went back to the office of the Wake Board and waited there. In the meanwhile; another Writ petition - No. 830 of 1996 - was filed by a third party, in which a Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order at 4.15 p.m., in W.P.M.P. No. 989 of 1996 directing, inter alia, that if the appellants in W.A. Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995 i.e., the petitioner and other members of the Wakf Board had resumed the office, they would continue to function.