MOHAMMED ABDUL SATTAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Ananthula Ravinder, learned Government Pleader for B.C.Welfare, Social Welfare and Minority Welfare Department, for respondent No.1; Sri Mohd. Ismail, learned counsel for respondent No.2; and Sri Mohd. Asif Amjad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 10.

(2.) Heard on admission.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assailed the order dtd. 21/3/2024 passed in W.P.No.20048 of 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge declined the relief sought by the appellant (writ petitioner) and relegated the appellant to avail the remedy before the Waqf Tribunal. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was appointed as Mutawalli and was never removed by any express order in exercise of power under Sec. 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995. In absence thereof, the respondents had no authority, jurisdiction and competence to appoint a Committee by the order impugned in the writ petition dtd. 26/6/2023. By placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.P.Wakf Board v. Mohd. Hidyathulla,AIR 1974 AP 287 and another judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Md. Saleem Ur Rahman v. A.P.State Wakf Board,2007 (4) ALD 527 the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no disputed question of fact and therefore relegating the appellant to the Waqf Tribunal was not proper. When principles of natural justice are grossly violated, the writ petition is maintainable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai,(1998) 8 SCC 1.