Telangana High Court

Mr. Syyed Fasiuddin vs Md. Naseer And 4 Others on 30 December, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
W.A.No.674 of 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

01.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.22339 of 2021.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that earlier a

writ petition i.e., W.P.No.15855 of 2021 was preferred by

Syyed Fasiuddin, who has preferred the present writ appeal,

in respect of a contract which he was executing i.e., contract

for collection of 17 items of offerings in Dargah Hazrath

Jahangir Peeran (R.H.) for an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

The contract was to expire on 11.08.2021 and the writ

petitioner, who was executing the contract, has stated before

this Court stating that he has suffered loss and therefore, he

should be continued to work, in spite of the fact that the

contract has come to an end on 11.08.2021. The learned

Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition, after hearing

the parties at length, by an order dated 12.08.2021.

Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the order dated 12.08.2021 passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15855 of 2021 are

reproduced as under:-

3. Petitioner was awarded contract for collection of 17 items of
offerings in Dargah Hazrath Jahangir Peeran (R.H) for an amount
of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only). The
period of contract awarded to petitioner expired on 11.08.2021.
2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to
prevailing pandemic situation and the ban imposed on opening of
Dargahs, there were no visitors to the Dargah and therefore,
petitioner has incurred huge loss. He further submits that even
though fresh tender notification was floated, but there was no
response and as of now, no new contractor is selected. He
therefore, submits that petitioner may be permitted to continue to
work as contractor for collecting 17 items of offerings given by the
devotees for further period.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board submits that
even though tender notification was floated, but it is not finalized
as there was no response and agrees for continuing the petitioner,
provided he accepts for increasing the tender value by atleast
15%.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 15% may be
on higher side and petitioner is willing to increase the volume of
amount by 10%. The amount collected in this manner is required
to be utilised for providing amenities to the devotees who visit the
Dargah. Therefore, I deem it reasonable to direct the petitioner to
pay 15% more than agreed amount for the previous contract
period. Therefore, subject to petitioner paying 15% more than the
amount agreed for the previous contract period, the respondent-

Board shall continue the services of petitioner as contractor till a new tender is floated and a new contractor is selected. It is open to the petitioner to participate in the tender process as and when tender notification is issued.

7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed."

The aforesaid order makes it very clear that the learned

Single Judge has permitted the writ petitioner therein to

continue to collect the amount in respect of offerings, subject

to payment of 15% more than the tender value and it was also

made clear that the arrangement made by the learned Single

Judge will continue till a new tender is floated and a new

contractor is selected. A liberty was also granted to the

petitioner therein to participate in the tender process.

After the aforesaid order was passed by the learned

Single Judge, the Telangana State Wakf Board, by an order

dated 27.08.2021, has extended the contract by one year,

even though there was no such order passed by the learned

Single Judge to grant extension by one year. It is unfortunate

that in absence of there being an order for extension for one

year, the Telangana State Wakf Board has extended the

contract by one year.

In all fairness, a review petition should have been filed

before this Court seeking clarification of the order dated

12.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.15855 of 2021. However, the

same has not been done and the Telangana State Wakf Board

in its own wisdom, for the reasons best known to it, extended

the period of contract. Subsequently, one Md. Naseer

preferred a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.22339 of 2021

challenging the action of the Telangana State Wakf Board in

extending the contract period and the learned Single Judge

has allowed the writ petition.

Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the order dated 01.11.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22339 of 2021

are reproduced as under:-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order. Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order giving a complete go-by to the order of this Court. When this Court passed an order directing the official respondents to continue respondent No.5 till a new tender is floated and a new contractor is selected, on the contrary, respondent No.2 has granted the extension for a period of one year

without floating the tenders, as such, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and non est in the eye of law. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the prayer sought by respondent No.5 herein in Writ Petition No.15855 of 2021, wherein respondent No.5 herein has sought further extension of contract only for a period of six (6) months, but, not one year.

5. Even though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 tried to defend the order impugned in the present Writ Petition, a conjoint reading of the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.15855 of 2021 and the order impugned herein shows that the Court has only directed the Wakf Board to continue the petitioner till a new tender is floated and a new contractor is selected. Though the same cannot be construed as giving a complete go-by to the tender process, respondent No.2 granted extension of contract for a period of one year. As seen from the record, respondent No.5 has sought extension for only six months.

6. Having regard to the above, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside giving liberty to respondent No.2 to call for tenders afresh for the period from January, 2022.