ABDUL WAHAB Vs. SECRETARY A P WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner assails the action of the respondents in not reentrusting the management of the Darga Hazarath Syed Mohammed Madina Aulia situate at Kalingapatnam to him even after the expiry of the statutory period fixed under Section 43-A of the Wakf Act.

(2.) The facts of the case may be briefly stated:The petitioner's father was the notified hereditary Muthawalli of the said Darga and he died in the year 1972. There was a dispute between the petitioner and his uncle one Abdul Khader regarding the succession to the office of Muthawalli. In view of the said dispute, the management of the Darga was taken over by the Wakf Board on 13-3-1974. After enquiry, the petitioner was appointed as Muthawalli by order dated 5-2-1975 and the same was published in the Gazette on 22-5-1975. Subsequently, there was a complaint of misappropriation of funds and mismanagement of the Darga against the petitioner. While it is the case of the petitioner that he was removed from the office without conducting any enquiry, it is the case of the respondents that a show-cause notice was issued to him and after considering his explanation of the same he was removed from the office of Muthawalli by order dated 28-1-1980 passed by the Administrator of Wakfs. Whatever it is, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was removed from the office in the year 1980. It appears that a police complaint was also lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and he was prosecuted in C.C.No. 309 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam, The said case however ended in acquittal of the petitioner by an order dated 7-11-1988. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to the authorities to restore him as Muthawalli and also to pay the Tasdeeq Allowance due to him. As the respondents failed to comply with his request, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the facts of the case are not disputed. It is however stated that the petitioner has not produced the copy of the order of acquittal passed by the criminal Court and the respondents have no knowledge of the same. It is further stated that as the petitioner has not produced a copy of the order passed by the criminal Court, his request for reinstatement deserves no consideration. It is finally stated that after the receipt of the representation of the petitioner further particulars are being called for from the LA. and District Wakf Committee and as soon as the necessary particulars are received, further action on his representation will be taken up.