THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.576 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Ms. Nafisa, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Abu Akram, learned counsel for respondent No.1 -
Telangana State Waqf Board (briefly, "the Board" hereinafter).
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.33304 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Order dated 24.08.2022 reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The continuation of the 3rd respondent as Mutawalli of the subject Wakf Board, prima facie, appears to be contrary to the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal in O.A.Nos.34 and 49 of 2021 dt. 03.12.2021.2
Sri Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, while fairly conceding to the said fact, would however submit that, on account of an on going Muharrum period of two months ten days, which has commenced on 30.07.2022 and is up to 05.10.2022, the 3rd respondent may be permitted to continue as Mutawalli to ensure continuation of the religious ceremonies.
Learned Standing Counsel would further undertake before this Court that beyond 05.10.2022, the 3rd respondent would not be permitted to continue as Mutawalli and the 1st respondent Board will take necessary action for implementation of the order dt.03.12.2021 passed by the Wakf Tribunal in O.A.Nos.34 and 49 of 2021, immediately after 05.10.2022.
The said submission of the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is taken on record.
List the matter on 12.10.2022."
4. First and foremost, we find that the related writ petition is pending for consideration before the learned Single Judge and the next date fixed is 12.10.2022. That apart, we find that on 03.12.2021, the following common order was passed by the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A.Nos.34 and 49 of 2021 (Syed Hadi Ali 3 Moosavi v. The Telangana State Waqf Board and another):
"46. In the result, the Original Application N.34/2021 is allowed in part. The impugned proceedings in F.No.01/Z1/T/HYD/2015, dt.01-07-2021 is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue modified proceedings appointing respondent No.2 as Mutawalli of the subject Dargah for a period of one year w.e.f.01-07- 2021 to 30-06-2022. Thereafter respondent No.1 shall appoint the next Mutawalli of the subject Dargah after due enquiry from among the progeny of Syed Abdul Qasim and Syed Askari Hussain including the applicant, unless he is convicted and sentenced to any offence, and others who are eligible and willing as far as possible fixing the period of one year and giving opportunity to the daughters of Syed Qasim Moosavi and Syed Askari Hussain alternately, especially keeping in view the guidelines mentioned in Ex.A5 to A7, common judgment in S.A.Nos.116, 117, 127 and 153/1983, dt.04-10-1983 and also common order in W.A.No.539/96 and W.P.No.5757/94 and the Act.
47. In the result, O.A.No.49 of 2021 is allowed without costs and the impugned memo is set aside."
5. Thus, in the aforesaid order, Tribunal had made it clear that the Board shall appoint next Mutawalli of the subject Dargah after due enquiry from amongst the progeny of Syed Abdul Qasim and Syed Askari Hussain, 4 including the applicant (Syed Hadi Ali Moosavi) subject to eligibility and willingness for a period of one year and after giving opportunity to the daughters of Syed Qasim Moosavi and Syed Askari Hussain.
6. Appellant/writ petitioner is the daughter of Late Mir Abdul Qasim Moosavi. The related writ petition has been filed with the grievance that the present Mutawalli i.e., respondent No.3 is continuing as such beyond 30.06.2022 despite the injunctive order of the Tribunal.
7. Before the learned Single Judge, Mr. Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that because of the ongoing Muharrum period of two months ten days which had commenced from 30.07.2022 and is upto 05.10.2022, respondent No.3 may be permitted to continue as Mutawalli to ensure continuation of the religious ceremonies. He further submitted that respondent No.3 would not be permitted to continue as Mutawalli beyond the aforesaid date and that the Board will take necessary action for implementation of the order 5 of the Tribunal dated 03.12.2021 immediately after 05.10.2022.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.3 is not in India. He is presently in Iran and therefore, it is highly impossible for him to perform the functions of Mutwalli from Iran. However, this submission is disputed by Mr. Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, who submits that respondent No.3 is very much present as could be seen during the Muharrum functions even as late as last week.
9. Be that as it may, without entering into any contentious issue, we are of the view that following the order of the Tribunal dated 03.12.2021 and as per the statement made by Mr. Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel, before the learned Single Judge, respondent No.3 cannot continue beyond 05.10.2022.
10. We, therefore, direct the Board to do the necessary enquiry/consultations etc as directed by the Tribunal and appoint the next Mutawalli well before 05.10.2022 so that 6 the next Mutawalli can takeover charge of the subject Dargah on and from 06.10.2022. We clarify that under no circumstances, respondent No.3 shall continue as Mutawalli of the subject Dargah beyond 05.10.2022 nor the Board shall takeover onto itself the functions of the Mutawalli in respect of the subject Dargah beyond 05.10.2022.
11. Writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 12.09.2022 vs