Syeda Kaneezesakina Moosavi vs Telangana State Waqf Board
2022 Latest Caselaw 4531 Tel

      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.

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

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,

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

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

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